study of the financial health of texas public …...the financial health of public retirement...

Study of the Financial Health of Texas Public Retirement Systems December 2014

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Pension Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Economic Impact on Public Retirement System Funding ............................................................................. 4

Investment Earnings ................................................................................................................................. 5

Employer Contributions ............................................................................................................................. 5

Member Contributions/Employment ........................................................................................................ 6

Public Retirement System Financial and Demographic Information ............................................................ 7

Financial Information ................................................................................................................................ 7

Demographic Information ......................................................................................................................... 8

PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness ....................................................................................................... 8

Public Retirement System Financial Health Measures ................................................................................. 9

Funded Ratio ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Amortization Period .................................................................................................................................. 9

Importance of Amortization Period ........................................................................................................ 10

PRB Recommended Amortization Period ................................................................................................ 10

Amortization Periods of Texas Public Retirement Systems ..................................................................... 10

Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 22

1

Executive Summary Concern over the ability of public retirement systems to meet their long-term obligations has intensified

in recent years due to various factors, including the stock market decline of 2008-2009 that impacted

the financial health of public retirement systems. Also, the economic recession of 2007 brought

budgetary challenges, such as lower tax revenues to state and local governments who are the sponsors

of these public retirement systems. In addition, these state and local governments face other fiscal

stresses, including rising health care costs. Since the recession, a small number of cities and counties

across the country have filed or are preparing to file for bankruptcy, which has raised questions

regarding a local government’s ability as a plan sponsor to meet its pension obligations. Some

noteworthy examples of cities and counties declaring bankruptcy include Detroit, Michigan; Stockton

and San Bernardino, California; Jefferson County and Prichard, Alabama; and Central Falls, Rhode Island.

In some of these cases the local government stopped making payments to its employees’ pension funds.

Texas hasn’t had any such situations and has emerged from the recession in better shape than many

other states. Nonetheless, events like these have raised policy and legal debates regarding the ability of

the sponsoring entities and the systems to meet their long-term obligations.

The 83rd Texas Legislature passed House Bill 13 (H.B. 13) on May 24, 2013. Section 7 of H.B. 13 directs

the Pension Review Board (PRB) to conduct a study of the financial health of public retirement systems

in Texas, including each system's ability to meet its long-term obligations taking into account the

contributions made to, benefits paid by, and investments made by the public retirement system. The

study should contain findings and the Board's recommendations regarding how a public retirement

system may mitigate its risk of not meeting its long-term obligations. Systems covered in the report shall

be provided a reasonable opportunity to review the recommendations and submit a response to the

Board. A final report is due to the Legislature by December 31, 2014 and the final report shall include a

copy of any system responses. See Appendix L for the bill text.

This study focuses on the major elements of public pension finance most likely to have a long-term

impact on a system’s financial health. On the funding side, these include contributions by sponsors and

members as well as returns on investments made by the retirement systems. On the benefit side, the

study evaluated the largest potential cost drivers including multipliers, cost-of-living adjustments

(COLAs), and deferred retirement option programs (DROPs).1 Given the unique nature of each public

retirement system across Texas, the study could not review all possible benefit provisions, such as Social

Security participation or proportionate retirement programs.

The PRB considered different measurements of the financial health of public retirement systems and

determined that a system’s amortization period is the most appropriate measure for the purposes of

this study. The PRB reviewed actuarial and financial information of the state’s public retirement

systems, including a historical analysis of retirement systems to determine which factors have had the

1 Since every retirement plan is unique, the factors mentioned vary in terms of the cost to the plan, and some are not cost drivers at all.

2

greatest impact on systems’ current ability to meet their long-term obligations.2 Key findings of this

study include the following:

Public retirement systems that have consistently received adequate funding are in a better

position to meet their long-term obligations than systems that have not.

Public retirement systems face higher funding requirements now than in 2000; the increase is

generally greater for plans at risk of not meeting their long-term obligations.

Public retirement systems with the longest amortization periods experienced the largest decline

in their funded ratios, putting them at greater risk of not meeting their long-term obligations.

Consistent and adequate contributions play a greater role than strong investment performance

in determining a system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations.

After evaluating the study’s findings, the PRB considered various recommendations for a retirement

system to mitigate its risk of not meeting its long-term obligations. Key recommendations in this study

include:

The retirement system sponsor and the system should establish an adequate funding policy.

Actuarial valuations should adequately disclose total contribution levels needed for systems to

have appropriate amortization periods. The governing body of the retirement system and the

sponsor should be provided this information.

The costs of benefit changes, including multiplier increases and granting of COLAs, should be

actuarially valued prior to adoption to ensure that additional costs will be funded adequately

and continuously. Such benefit changes should only be granted if the costs can be properly

funded after adoption and amortized in accordance with the PRB Guidelines for Actuarial

Soundness.

As this study illustrates, a system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations can change over time. A

retirement system that is currently able to meet its long-term obligations may not be in a similar

position in the future. Conversely, a retirement system that currently cannot meet its long-term

obligations may enact changes to address this issue and thus in the future, be in a position to meet its

long-term obligations.

Introduction Public retirement systems in Texas have nearly 2.4 million members and approximately $220 billion in

total net assets. Texas has 93 actuarially funded defined benefit systems, including the two agent

multiple-employer systems: the Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) and the Texas

Municipal Retirement System (TMRS). TCDRS and TMRS are comprised of local retirement plans.3 As of

December 31, 2013, 844 municipalities were participating in TMRS, and 656 counties and districts were

2 For the purposes of this study, the information and data used was based on reports and documents provided to the PRB by August 1, 2014.

However, since the amortization period is the key measure used for the study, the amortization period groupings are based on the most current actuarial valuations received through December 1, 2014 and in some cases reflect future contribution increases as indicated by the plans.

3 Unless noted, TCDRS and TMRS are treated as collective systems as opposed to individual plans.

3

participating in TCDRS.4 Counting each individual plan of TCDRS and TMRS separately, 1,591 retirement

systems were reviewed as part of this study.5

Texas has various statutes and laws governing public retirement systems. Both statewide and local

retirement systems are enabled by the Texas Constitution. Title 8 of the Texas Government Code applies

to public retirement systems. Statewide retirement systems’ governing statutes are contained in

Subtitle B through Subtitle H of Title 8. Certain local retirement systems are specifically enabled by

Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes. In addition to these systems, the Texas Local Fire Fighters’ Retirement

Act (TLFFRA) governs 41 paid and part-paid firefighter systems across the state. Chapter 810 of the

Government Code authorizes local retirement systems not already established through other law. The

following table shows the number of systems in each category. For a breakout of the systems in each

category see Appendix B.

Types of Systems

System Type Number of

Systems

Statewide 8

Municipal 166

TLFFRA 41

Ch. 810 28

Total 93

Public retirement systems in Texas can also be grouped based on employee type, including civilian

employees, public safety (police and fire) employees, or both. The table below shows the number of

retirement systems by employee type.

Systems by Employee Type

Employee Type Number of

Systems

Civilian 35

Public Safety 54

Combined 4

Total 93

4 TMRS has an additional six inactive municipalities with no active members or employee contributions.

5 Texas has over 160 defined contribution systems and over 80 individual volunteer firefighter systems registered with the PRB. State law

recently was amended to exempt these systems from annual reporting to the PRB; however, these systems are still required to register and submit plan designs with the PRB. These systems were not considered as part of this study. 6 The 16 municipal plans include 12 plans created under Vernon’s and 4 other plans created by city ordinances or city charters.

4

Benefits Income Expenses Contributions

Pension Funding

C + I = B + E

Contributions (C) + Income (I) = Benefits (B) + Expenses (E)

Long-term funding for public retirement systems should satisfy the following equation, C + I = B + E, or

Contributions (C) + Income (I) = Benefits (B) + Expenses (E). Under this funding equation, employers and

employees contribute to a retirement system in regular intervals. The system invests these

contributions and earns a return on that investment. Return from investments (fixed income, equity,

mutual funds, etc.) are included in income. Contributions (C) and income (I) combine to build or add to

the system’s trust fund. Retirement systems pay benefits (B) to members who have met plan

requirements. Retirement systems also pay expenses (E), including investment-related and

administrative expenses, necessary for maintaining the system. Benefit payments and expenses

combine to deplete the retirement system’s trust fund.

Policymakers and retirement system sponsors generally set system contributions and benefits, however,

for certain systems, the governing body of the retirement system and/or the employees can set system

contributions and benefits (See Appendix B). To ensure long-term system viability, sponsors and

members must contribute money to the trust fund that is sufficient to cover system benefit obligations

over a reasonable period over time. To determine the annual contributions necessary to amortize

pension obligations over a reasonable time period, actuarial methods and assumptions are used to

calculate the future liabilities (i.e. present value of benefit obligations). Actuaries include earnings from

invested assets, plan participant contributions, and plan demographic changes over time in this

calculation.

Economic Impact on Public Retirement System Funding Economic variables significantly affect the funded status and the long-term viability of public retirement

systems. As discussed above, defined benefit public retirement systems generally have three sources of

funding: earnings on investments, employer contributions, and member contributions. The ratio of

these funding sources relative to the benefits paid to plan participants determines the overall health of

a retirement system.

5

The 2013 Annual Public Retirement System Study conducted by the National Conference on Public

Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) reviewed 241 state and local government retirement systems

and analyzed the most current data available in various areas including funding sources. The study found

that investment returns provided the largest funding source to retirement systems, generating 69% of

earnings, followed by employer contributions at 23%, and member contributions at 8%.

Source: National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) and Cobalt Community Research 2013 Study

Investment Earnings

Investment earnings make up the bulk of public retirement system cash flow and are largely dependent

on financial market activity. As a result, variance in annual investment earnings can substantially impact

the financial health of public retirement systems. This was demonstrated by the negative impact of the

2008-2009 stock market decline on the financial condition of many public retirement systems. When

investment earnings are inadequate to fund benefit payments, employer and member contributions

must cover the shortfall.

When fund investments perform well, the additional income can help strengthen the financial health of

public retirement systems, while poor investment performance can weaken their financial health.

Review of the S&P 500 stock market index returns for the six years ending in 2013 shows that since the

2008-2009 decline, the equities market has exhibited a significant rebound, as shown in the chart below.

The rebound has helped to bring retirement system assets values back from post-recession lows.

S&P 500 Annual Returns

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Annual Return -37% 26% 15% 2% 16% 32%

Employer Contributions

The budgetary health of the employer (sponsoring governmental entity) can affect contribution levels to

the public retirement systems. If tax revenues are strong and growing, a governmental entity should be

in a better financial position to make necessary contributions to the public retirement system; however,

when tax revenue amounts decline and resources are more limited, contributions to public retirement

69%

23%

8%

Public Retirement System Sources of Revenue (2013 NCPERS Study)

Investment Earnings


Member Contributions

6

1,600

1,650

1,700

1,750

1,800

1,850

1,900

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Texas Public Sector Employees

Texas Public SectorEmployees(In Thousands)

systems may be reduced or cut, leading to a deterioration of the financial health of a public retirement

system.

The 2008 recession impacted the state and local tax revenues of governmental entities across the U.S.

including Texas. However, the Texas economy appears to be improving at a faster pace than many other

states’, primarily due to growth in the oil, natural gas and construction sectors. In March 2014 the Texas

Comptroller’s Office reported that state sales tax revenue totaled $2.09 billion, an increase of 5.6%

compared to March 2013.

Member Contributions/Employment

The level of employment affects public retirement systems in several ways, both directly and indirectly.

The direct impact relates to the number of active members in a retirement system. When the level of

employment increases, there is a corresponding increase in the number of active members and total

employee contributions to a public retirement system. When employment levels decline, the number of

active members and total employee contribution amounts can decrease, leaving a public retirement

system with a smaller contribution base.

The direct effect of reduced government hiring is a smaller contribution base for public retirement

systems due to fewer than expected new employees. Since public retirement systems generally receive

a portion of funding from new employee contributions, reductions in new employees relative to current

and retired retirement system members can put additional strain on the system. The sponsoring entity

may be required to pay any funding deficits. In Texas, as a response to reduced tax revenues and budget

cuts statewide during the recession, hiring in the public sector was significantly impacted. However, due

to the steady growth in the Texas economy, employment has grown since 2012, as evidenced by the

chart below. Additionally, according to the data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,

government sector employment in Texas grew by 16.1% in 2014.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2014.

A high level of unemployment can have an indirect negative impact on public retirement systems. Level

of unemployment is one of the economic indicators that investors use to make their investment

decisions and if that level is high, it reduces economic growth. In turn, a weak stock market affects the

value of assets of public retirement systems.

In general, there are two primary effects of high unemployment on the economy as a whole: lower

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and lower tax revenue for governments. GDP is an economic indicator of

7

how well the economy is doing and greatly impacts the stock market. Lower tax receipts for the

government affects government budgets and the sponsoring governmental entity’s ability to increase its

contributions to recover the market losses incurred by public retirement systems.

Public Retirement System Financial and Demographic Information

Financial Information

Public retirement systems throughout the state faced challenges brought on by the stock market decline

of 2008-2009. Since then, systems have seen their total net market value of assets increase significantly,

as shown in the chart below.

Texas public retirement systems report their annual financial information, including contributions,

benefits and investment income, to the PRB. For the year ending December 31, 2013, retirement

systems received $4.26 billion in employer contributions and $3.81 billion in employee contributions.

Systems paid out over $13.92 billion in benefit payments and added investment income of over $21.37

billion. The following tables include financial information reported to the PRB, grouped by retirement

system type and employee type.

Aggregate Financial Data by System Type (in millions)

System Type Total Net

Assets Employer

Contributions Employee

Contributions Benefit

Payments Investment

Income Investment

Expense

Statewide $187,049 $3,186 $3,393 $11,881 $17,557 $307

Municipal $25,469 $737 $319 $1,595 $2,821 $84

TLFFRA $1,714 $62 $44 $120 $243 $6

CH. 810 $5,316 $276 $53 $328 $757 $30

Total $219,548 $4,262 $3,810 $13,923 $21,379 $428

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$197,427 $178,425 $164,891 $178,942 $194,085 $204,702 $219,548

Total Net Assets (in Millions) for Public Retirement Systems in Texas

Total Net Assets

8

Aggregate Financial Data by Employee Type (in millions)

Employee Type

Total Net Assets


Employee Contributions

Benefit Payments

Investment Income

Investment Expense

Civilian $130,864 $1,993 $2,422 $9,132 $11,832 $251

Public Safety $18,222 $490 $225 $1,015 $1,928 $56

Combined $70,462 $1,780 $1,163 $3,777 $7,619 $121

Total $219,548 $4,262 $3,810 $13,923 $21,379 $428

Demographic Information

Texas public retirement systems report their annual membership information, including active,

annuitant and terminated members, to the PRB. As of December 31, 2013, retirement systems had

nearly 2.4 million total members, including over 1.3 million active members and over 600,000 annuitant

members. The following tables include membership information reported to the PRB, grouped by

retirement system type and employee type.

Membership by System Type

System Type Total Members Active Annuitants Terminated

Statewide 2,200,835 1,234,458 551,690 414,687

Municipal 114,254 61,509 43,050 10,266

TLFFRA 8,601 5,162 3,370 69

Ch. 810 70,510 38,885 15,506 16,119

Total 2,394,771 1,340,014 613,616 441,141

Membership by Employee Type

Employee Type Total Members Active Annuitants Terminated

Civilian 1,505,929 902,108 387,945 215,876

Public Safety 114,254 70,643 30,695 12,916

Combined 774,588 367,263 194,976 212,349

Total 2,394,771 1,340,014 613,616 441,141

PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness Actuarial assumptions and methodologies are used to determine the proper funding policy for public

retirement systems. Actuaries include plan participant demographics, benefit obligations, and economic

forecast assumptions to calculate the periodic contributions necessary to ensure the long-term financial

viability of public retirement systems, and to estimate the impact that potential plan changes will have

on their financial position. To lend transparency to retirement systems’ actuarial processes and to

establish minimum funding standards necessary to meet long-term obligations, the PRB created the

Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness in 1984. Since the original adoption of the PRB Guidelines, the PRB

has reviewed and updated them as necessary. The following current PRB Guidelines were adopted on

September 28, 2011.

1. The funding of a pension plan should reflect all plan obligations and assets.

9

2. The allocation of the normal cost portion of the contributions should be level or declining as a percent of payroll over all generations of taxpayers, and should be calculated under applicable actuarial standards.

3. Funding of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability should be level or declining as a percent of payroll over the amortization period.

4. Funding should be adequate to amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued liability over a period not to exceed 40 years, with 15 to 25 years being a more preferable target. Benefit increases should not be adopted if all plan changes being considered cause a material increase in the amortization period and if the resulting amortization period exceeds 25 years.

5. The choice of assumptions should be reasonable, and should comply with applicable actuarial

standards.

Public Retirement System Financial Health Measures In order for a retirement system to meet its long-term obligations, sufficient assets are needed to pay

for benefits accrued by and owed to system members. To determine each system’s ability to meet its

long-term obligations, the PRB considered two measures frequently used to assess a system’s financial

health: funded ratio, or the ratio of assets to liabilities, and amortization period. The PRB believes the

amortization period to be an appropriate measure of a retirement system’s ability to meet its long-term

obligations, and therefore has used the amortization period as the key measure for this study.

Funded Ratio

Some consider a funded ratio of at least 80% to signify overall financial health and a funded ratio of less

than 60% problematic. Others would consider a funded ratio of 100% to be desirable. The funded ratio

alone, however, may not provide enough insight into the overall financial health of a retirement system.

Newly formed retirement systems, for example, will have low funded ratios for some time as they build

the value of their trust funds. Additionally, retirement systems with the same funded ratio may be in

different positions to meet their long-term obligations. A retirement system’s funded ratio is only a one-

time snapshot of the system’s asset to liability measurement and does not provide any trend-related

information. Therefore, funded ratio should be evaluated in conjunction with a system’s amortization

period.

Amortization Period

A retirement system’s amortization period is determined, in part, by considering the system’s

contributions, benefits and investments. The amortization period reflects the system’s ability to pay its

normal cost plus its unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL), if any exists. The normal cost represents

the portion of the cost of the projected benefits allocated to the current year. The UAAL represents the

present value of benefits earned to date that are not covered by plan assets.

A retirement system’s annual contributions are applied first to the normal cost with any excess applied

to pay off the UAAL. The amortization period measures the length of time, in years, needed to pay for

the UAAL. For instance, if a retirement system has an amortization of 20 years, current funding is

sufficient to pay the system’s normal cost plus pay off the UAAL over the 20 years. A retirement system

10

with a zero amortization period has no UAAL. An infinite amortization period means that funding is not

sufficient to ever pay off the UAAL, after first paying the normal cost. In certain cases, an infinite

amortization period reflects funding insufficient to even pay the system’s normal cost, thus leaving no

additional funding to pay towards the UAAL.

Importance of Amortization Period

A retirement system’s amortization period takes into account its contributions, benefits, and

investments, and indicates whether the system is receiving adequate funding for prior and current

benefit accruals. For this reason, the PRB believes the amortization period is an appropriate measure of

a retirement system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations. Changes to contributions, benefits and

investments are ultimately reflected in a system’s amortization period. For instance, a system with a

zero amortization period today could have an infinite amortization period in ten years through

insufficient contributions, poor investment returns, or unfunded benefit enhancements.

PRB Recommended Amortization Period

The maximum amortization period established by the PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness is 40 years,

with a recommended amortization period of 15 to 25 years. Public retirement systems with funding

arrangements that are insufficient to amortize the system’s UAAL over a period of 40 years or less are

currently not receiving adequate funding to meet their long-term obligations. Thus, any retirement

system with an amortization period that is greater than 40 years is not in a position to meet its long-

term obligations in accordance with the PRB Guidelines.

Amortization Periods of Texas Public Retirement Systems

Texas has 93 statewide and local retirement systems, including the two agent multiple-employer

systems: TCDRS and TMRS. 844 cities are participating in TMRS and 656 counties and districts are

participating in TCDRS.7 Counting each individual employer in TCDRS and TMRS separately, 1,591

retirement systems were reviewed as part of this study. The chart below shows the number of

retirement systems within amortization period ranges based on the PRB Guidelines.8

Current Actuarial Valuation Amortization Periods

Amortization Period (Years) Number of Plans Percent of Total

Infinite (Never) 9 1%

At least 40 but less than infinite 16 1%

At least 25 but less than 40 418 26%



Zero (None) 333 21%

Total 1,591 100%

7 See footnote 4.

8 See footnote 2.

11

Of the 1,591 retirement systems in Texas, only two percent have amortization periods greater than 40

years, the maximum established by the PRB Guidelines. As the following chart shows, none of the 656

retirement plans in TCDRS have amortization periods of greater than 40 years.

TCDRS Actuarial Valuation Amortization Periods9

Current Amortization Period (Years) Number of Plans Percent of Total




At least 15 but less than 25* 293 45%


Zero (None) 136 21%

Total 656 100%

* Amortization period may not exceed 20 years.

Additionally, none of the 844 retirement plans in TMRS have amortization periods of greater than 40

years.

TMRS Actuarial Valuation Amortization Periods10

Current Amortization Period (Years) Number of Plans Percent of Total



At least 25 but less than 40* 383 46%



Zero (None) 196 23%

Total 844 100%

* Amortization period does not exceed 30 years.

As TCDRS and TMRS statute set maximum amortization periods for their member systems lower than

the 40 year amortization period established by the PRB Guidelines, all of their member systems currently

have funding arrangements sufficient to meet their long-term obligations. More detailed information on

TCDRS and TMRS member systems can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively.

Considering TCDRS and TMRS as single retirement systems, the study then reviewed the 93 statewide

and local retirement systems. Based on the most current actuarial valuations reported to the PRB as of

December 1, 2014 and in some cases reflecting future contribution increases, 25 out of 93 public

retirement systems have amortization periods greater than 40 years, as shown in the chart below. Of

these 25 systems, 9 have funding arrangements that will never amortize the system’s UAAL and are

currently scheduled to eventually deplete the assets of the system. Furthermore, 35 out of 93 public

9 Based on the December 31, 2013 TCDRS actuarial valuation. TCDRS statute sets the maximum amortization period at 20 years. Please see Appendix C for a detailed listing of each county and district’s amortization period.

10 Based on the December 31, 2013 TMRS actuarial valuation. TMRS statute sets the default amortization period at 25 years with limited ability to increase it to 40 years. However, no city exceeds 30 years. Please see Appendix D for a detailed listing of each city’s amortization period.

12

retirement systems have funding arrangements that are within the minimum standard established by

the PRB Guidelines, but are not sufficient to meet the recommended range of 15 to 25 years. A complete

list of each public retirement system’s current and prior actuarial valuation report information is

contained in Appendix A of this report.

Current Actuarial Valuation Amortization Periods







Zero (None) 1 1%

Total 93 100%

Findings A significant negative shift has occurred in the reported amortization periods of Texas public retirement

systems since 2000, when 24 systems had amortization periods of zero. Currently, only one system has

an amortization period of zero. The table below provides a comparison of systems’ amortization periods

between 2000 and 2013.

As the table shows, eight systems had amortization periods greater than 40 years in 2000. Twenty-five

public retirement systems currently have amortization periods greater than 40 years, an increase of over

200% since 2000. To determine the causes of this increase in the number of systems with amortization

periods outside the PRB Guidelines, the PRB conducted a review of historical information of Texas public

retirement systems, including actuarial, financial, contribution, benefit, and demographic data (See

Appendix F). The PRB also performed correlation analysis to identify what factors most strongly relate to

a system meeting its long-term obligations (See Appendix G). Outlined below are the findings of this

analysis.

11 The single system with a current amortization period of zero is not included in the charts in the following pages of the study because the averages in other amortization categories would not be properly comparable.

Amortization Period Comparison 2000 to 2013

Amortization Period 2000 2013

Infinite (Never) 5 9

At least 40 but less than infinite 3 16

At least 25 but less than 40 35 35



Zero (None)11

24 1

13

1. Adequate Contributions. Public retirement systems that have consistently received adequate

funding are in a better position to meet their long-term obligations than systems that have not.

Based on the results of the correlation analysis, the strongest correlation to a retirement system’s

amortization period is the percent of annual required contribution (ARC) funded. Public retirement

systems that have consistently received adequate funding of the ARC have amortization periods within

or lower than the range as recommended by the PRB Guidelines. Systems that have received insufficient

contribution levels over a long period of time have experienced a decline in their financial health. The

table below details the average percent of ARC funded over two time periods: 2000 to 2006 and 2007 to

current.12

Percent of ARC Funded13

Current Amortization Period (Years)

Average % ARC Funded 2000 - 2006

Standard Deviation

Average % ARC Funded Since 2007

Standard Deviation

Infinite (Never) 99.61% 7.32% 84.92% 20.52%

At least 40 but less than infinite 92.74% 9.52% 89.80% 5.82%

At least 25 but less than 40 100.37% 15.66% 95.49% 12.44%



Aggregate Average 97.89% 13.84% 95.96% 16.43%

2. Funding Requirements. Public retirement systems face higher funding requirements now than in

2000, and the increase is generally greater for plans at risk of not meeting their long-term

obligations.

Since 2000, the average ARC for retirement systems has increased from 11.92% to 17.42% of payroll.

The increase tended to be greater for systems with higher current amortization periods.

Percent Change in ARC Since 200014


Average Current ARC

Average ARC Circa 2000

Change in ARC since 2000

Infinite (Never) 16.73% 11.05% 5.67%

At least 40 but less than infinite 19.97% 12.14% 7.83%

At least 25 but less than 40 17.09% 12.03% 5.06%



Total 17.42% 11.92% 5.50%

12 Originally, GASB determined the ARC based on a 40 year period to amortize the unfunded accrued liability but lowered it to 30 years in 2006. Therefore, the figures presented for 2000 to 2006 are based on a 40 year ARC and since 2007 are based on a 30 year ARC.

13 For TCDRS and TMRS, information relating to the percent of ARC paid is contained in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. 14

Does not include closed or frozen retirement systems.

14

The overall increase in ARC is partially due to the GASB change from a 40 year to a 30 year amortization

period requirement. However, other factors that may have increased a retirement system’s ARC include

prior ARC underfunding, investment performance below the assumed rate of return, increased costs

associated with benefit enhancements, and other actuarial losses.

In response to increased funding requirements, employer contribution rates have also increased since

2000. The average employer contribution rate for systems in 2000 was 10.98%; the average current

employer contribution rate for systems is 16.12%. The chart in Appendix F shows the comparison of

aggregate employer (and employee) contribution rates between 2000 and 2013. Also, Appendix E shows

each retirement system’s current employer contribution rates as well as the system’s employer

contribution rates in 2000.

3. Funded Ratios. Systems that have the longest amortization periods have experienced the largest

decline in their funded ratios, putting them at greater risk of not meeting their long-term

obligations.

Since 2000, the funded ratio of most public retirement systems has declined. The decline has generally

been more significant for systems that currently have amortization periods greater than 40 years as

shown in the chart below. In 2000, nine systems had funded ratios less than 60%, of which two were

newly formed systems. Currently, 27 systems have funded ratios less than 60%. The chart in Appendix F

provides more details on systems’ funded ratios between 2000 and 2013.

Change in Funded Ratio by Amortization Periods


Current Average Funded Ratio

Average Funded Ratio Circa 2000

Infinite (Never) 68.76% 97.14%

At least 40 but less than infinite 63.55% 86.20%

At least 25 but less than 40 63.84% 80.38%



4. Asset to Liability Growth. Public retirement systems with higher asset to liability growth are in a

better position to meet their long-term obligations than systems with lower asset to liability

growth.

A system’s funded ratio measures its assets compared to its liabilities at a single point in time. If a

system’s liabilities grow faster than its assets, the system can experience an increase in its UAAL and

require more contributions to amortize the UAAL. Total contribution rates, including employer and

employee rates, have increased accordingly since 2000. The average total contribution rate for systems

in 2000 was 19.51%; the average current total contribution rate for systems is 26.27%. The chart in

Appendix F shows the comparison of contribution rates between 2000 and 2013. Also, Appendix E shows

each retirement system’s current total contribution rates as well as the system’s total contribution rates

in 2000.

15

The PRB compared the growth in retirement system assets to the growth in liabilities since 2000. On

average, liabilities grew faster than assets. The PRB found systems with lower amortization periods had

higher rates of asset to liability growth than systems with high amortization periods, as shown in the

table below. The PRB also analyzed factors impacting a retirement system’s asset to liability growth.

The strongest correlation to a retirement system’s asset to liability growth is average annual non-

investment cash flow (see finding #5 for definition). Additionally, the difference between a retirement

system’s ten year net rate of return and the assumed rate of return, as well as the percent of ARC

funded since 2007, both showed some positive correlation to a retirement system’s asset to liability

growth (see Appendix G).

Rate of Asset to Liability Growth (2000 to 2013)


Rate

Infinite (Never) 0.43

At least 40 but less than infinite 0.40

At least 25 but less than 40 0.51



5. Non-Investment Cash Flow. Public retirement systems with higher non-investment cash flow are

generally in a better position to meet their long-term obligations than systems with lower non-

investment cash flow.

Non-investment cash flow is the annual contributions less benefit payments and expenses of the fund,

as a percentage of beginning total net assets. Non-investment cash flow can be positive or negative. For

mature retirement systems, slightly negative non-investment cash flow (e.g. -1% to -3%) is the desired

aim of pre-funding the system, allowing for lower contribution requirements. Significant negative non-

investment cash flow (e.g. -4% to -6%) over time, however, depletes the system’s funds, requiring higher

investment returns to offset the depletion. The PRB’s correlation analysis found that the average annual

non-investment cash flow showed some correlation to a retirement system’s amortization period.

Retirement systems with a higher non-investment cash flow tended to have a lower amortization

period.

Average Annual Non-Investment Cash Flow15


Avg. Annual Non-Investment

Cash Flow since 2000 Standard Deviation

Avg. Annual Non-Investment

Cash Flow since 2007 Standard Deviation

Infinite (Never) -1.46% 2.65% -1.88% 2.44%

At least 40 but less than infinite -2.22% 1.45% -2.82% 1.70%




Aggregate Average -0.05% 3.93% -0.44% 3.70%

15

Aggregate calculations only include active and open plans for the years 2000 through 2014.

16

Average annual non-investment cash flow is within reasonable ranges for most systems. However, three

retirement systems’ average annual non-investment cash flow is less than -5% and six systems’ average

annual non-investment cash flow is between -4% and -5% (see Appendix F). For these systems, a

continuation of this trend may lead to a significant deterioration in their financial health.

6. Benefits. No matter the level of benefit enhancements, the most important factor for a public

retirement system to meet its long-term obligations is properly funding any benefit

enhancements.

The PRB reviewed historical benefit plan provision information and analyzed certain benefit policy and

plan design improvements as well as total contribution rates reported by all systems between 1995 and

2013. The PRB found that, since 1995, systems with high amortization periods had a higher percentage

of benefit enhancements than systems with low amortization periods. However, a percentage of

systems with low amortization periods provided benefit enhancements as well. Therefore, the PRB

believes the most significant factor to meeting a system’s long-term obligations is properly funding

benefit enhancements. The chart in Appendix F shows the comparison of benefit enhancements since

1995.

7. Demographics. The impact of fewer active members per retired member can be significant as

fewer member contributions are available to the system.

The PRB also reviewed historical demographic information to compare the trends in active to retired

members between 2000 and 2013. Overall, the average ratio of active to retired members has declined

since 2000 when the average was 3.67 active members for every retired member. Today, the average

ratio is 1.99 active members for each retired member. The decline was steepest in systems with infinite

amortization periods and civilian systems. The chart in Appendix F shows the comparison of active to

retired members between 2000 and 2013.

The impact of fewer active members per retired member can be significant as fewer member

contributions are available to the system. The non-investment cash flow of a system may decrease as

the ratio declines, requiring higher contribution rates by the sponsor and members to adequately fund

the retirement system.

8. Investment Performance. Consistent and adequate contributions play a greater role than strong

investment performance in determining a system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations.

Investment rates of return are often thought to be the primary driver of the overall health of a public

retirement system. Investment returns below the assumed rate of return over a long period of time may

have led to a deterioration of the financial health of certain systems; however, the PRB found that

investment performance relative to the assumed return was not an indicator of a system’s ability to

meet its long-term obligations.

Trend analysis revealed that over the last ten years investment performance has varied considerably

across systems with different amortization periods. In fact, the difference between the retirement

system’s ten year net rate of return and the assumed rate of return showed almost no relation to the

17

retirement system’s amortization period (see Appendix G). Also, retirement systems with high or infinite

amortization periods generally had a better absolute investment return over a ten year period than

systems with low amortization periods.

Latest Investment Rates of Return by Amortization Period16


1 Year Gross

1 Year Net

3 Year Gross

3 Year Net

10 Year Gross

10 Year Net

Avg. Assumed

Rate

Infinite (Never) 13.83% 13.25% 9.79% 9.19% 7.31% 6.74% 7.94%

At least 40 but less than infinite

15.23% 14.55% 9.20% 8.44% 7.30% 6.54% 7.98%

At least 25 but less than 40 13.39% 12.36% 8.89% 7.97% 7.03% 6.15% 7.65%



Certainly, weak investment returns compared to a system’s assumed rate of return reduce a system’s

ability to meet its long-term obligations and may lead to a decline in the system’s financial health.

However, although strong investment returns can improve the health of a public retirement system,

they cannot offset insufficient contributions over a long period of time. As noted in Finding 1, consistent

and adequate contributions play a much greater role than investment performance relative to the

expected return in determining a system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations.

Recommendations As part of the study of the financial health of public retirement systems in Texas, the PRB has been

directed to include recommendations regarding how a system may mitigate its risk of not meeting its

long-term obligations. Based on the findings of this study, the PRB makes the following

recommendations.

1. Funding Policy to Establish Adequate Contribution Rate

This study identified the percent of annual required contribution (ARC) funded to have the strongest

correlation to public retirement system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations. Over the long-term,

insufficient contributions will lead to deterioration in the financial health of a retirement system. As

detailed in this study, even strong investment returns cannot offset the lack of consistent and adequate

contributions.

Recommendation: Accordingly, the PRB recommends that the retirement system sponsor and the

system should develop an adequate funding policy. The policy should establish a contribution level

16 Rates of return are based on information provided by retirement systems on form PRB-1000. For systems that have not reported this information to the PRB, their rates of return are calculated by the PRB based on the “internal rate of return” formula, as follows. Gross return: 2*(Investment Income)/(Beginning of Year Assets + End of Year Assets)-(Investment Income). Net return: 2*(Investment Income – Total Expenses)/(Beginning of Year Assets + End of Year Assets)-(Investment Income – Total Expenses).

18

sufficient to pay the actuarially determined contribution (ADC) rate to maintain an amortization period

in accordance with PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness. Systems should notify the governing body of

the sponsor in writing if the system receives an actuarial valuation that shows that the contribution level

established in the funding policy is no longer sufficient to pay the ADC. 17

If a system receives three consecutive annual actuarial valuations (or two consecutive valuations if the

system conducts valuations every two or three years), indicating system funding is not sufficient to meet

the requirements set out in the funding policy, the sponsor and the governing body of the retirement

system should work to develop a written plan with specific measures reasonably designed to restore

funding to a level adequate to pay the ADC. Retirement systems whose plan design or contribution

levels are determined by state or local governing statutes should evaluate, in collaboration with their

sponsors, the need to request legislative or local action to make changes.18

2. Disclosure and Reporting

On June 25, 2012, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved two new statements

relating to financial reporting for state and local public retirement systems: GASB Statements 67 and 68.

GASB Statement 67 replaces GASB Statement 25 for public retirement systems and GASB Statement 68

replaces GASB Statement 27 for sponsors of retirement systems. One of the most recognizable elements

of the old GASB statements is the annual required contribution (ARC). However, the new GASB

Statement 67 will no longer require the ARC to be reported.

Recommendation: Adequate contributions are the most significant factor in the long-term financial

health of a retirement system and the most common measure of contribution adequacy (ARC) will no

longer be required. Therefore, the PRB recommends that actuarial valuations should adequately disclose

total contribution levels needed for systems to have appropriate amortization periods, i.e. 25/30/40

years or 10/20/30 years.19 The governing body of the retirement system and the sponsor should be

provided this information. Also, retirement system actuarial valuations should disclose actual

contributions made to the system by the sponsor.

3. Benefit Decisions

This study did not evaluate or analyze the appropriateness of benefits offered by system sponsors, but it

did find that providing adequate contributions to fund those benefits is essential to meeting long-term

obligations, regardless of the level of benefits offered. Even retirement systems with lower multipliers,

no cost of living adjustments (COLAs), and no deferred retirement option programs (DROPs) can become

17 Appendix I contains a chart showing the projected annual contribution shortfalls, both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of General Fund expenditures, of systems with amortization periods greater than 30 years.

18Appendix B contains a chart showing how, and by whom, decisions related to contributions and benefits are made for statewide, municipal, Texas Local Fire Fighter’s Retirement Act (TLFFRA), and other governmental plans. For each type of plan, the chart also identifies statutory and constitutional parameters for making changes to contributions and benefits. 19 Appendix H details the projected contribution shortfalls by percent of payroll and in dollar amounts for retirement systems with amortization periods greater than 30 years. For these retirement systems, the average additional contributions required to reach a 30 year amortization period is 3.45% of payroll annually. See Appendix F for average additional contributions required information.

19

unable to meet their long-term obligations if adequate funding is not provided. Retirement systems with

higher costs of benefits will deteriorate even more rapidly if adequate funding is not provided.

Recommendations:

a. The PRB recommends that the costs of benefit changes, including multiplier increases and

granting of COLAs, should be actuarially valued prior to adoption to ensure that additional costs

will be funded adequately and continuously. Such benefit changes should only be granted if the

costs can be properly funded after adoption and amortized in accordance with the PRB

Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness.

b. Systems and sponsors should establish anti-spiking measures to ensure actuarial integrity and

transparency in benefit determination. “Pension spiking” or “salary spiking” refers to a process

of employees’ compensation being inflated immediately preceding retirement in order to

receive larger pensions. Because sudden dramatic end-of-career compensation increases may

not be appropriately valued ahead of time, pension spiking could create unforeseen costs for

the system.20

c. To address any retirement system funding deficits, systems and sponsors should consider the

range of options available to improve the system’s funded status, including the following:

making contribution policy changes; reducing future benefit accruals for new hires by creating

new tiers with lower multipliers; modifying existing benefit enhancements, such as COLAs or

DROPs; and increasing retirement ages and vesting periods in accordance with applicable laws.21

In response to funding challenges, several retirement systems in Texas have already made a

number of policy choices, including the creation of new, lower cost benefit tiers. Also,

employers participating in Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) and the Texas County

and District Retirement System (TCDRS) have current statutory authority to make prospective

changes to their benefit structure.

4. Actuarial Assumptions

The PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness state that retirement systems’ actuarial assumptions should

be reasonable and comply with applicable actuarial standards. Actuarial assumptions drive the

calculation of the recommended contributions and future cost projections for retirement systems and

their sponsors.22

20

Since TCDRS and TMRS are cash-balance plans, in which the retirement benefits are based on the employee’s savings balance and employer

matching at retirement, benefit spiking cannot occur by design. 21 Appendix B contains a chart showing how, and by whom, decisions related to contributions and benefits are made for statewide, municipal, Texas Local Fire Fighter’s Retirement Act (TLFFRA), and other governmental plans. For each type of plan, the chart also identifies statutory parameters for making changes to contributions and benefits.

22 Appendix J provides more information on actuarial assumptions used by Texas systems, as well as definitions of key actuarial terms.

20

Recommendations:

a. The PRB recommends that retirement systems should, at regular intervals and within

appropriate budgetary considerations, conduct actuarial experience studies to evaluate

actuarial assumptions versus actual system experience. Assumptions should be updated where

necessary to most accurately reflect actual system experience and project future costs. As part

of the experience study, systems should regularly review their investment return and inflation

assumptions to ensure those assumptions align with the systems’ investment strategy, asset

allocation, and risk tolerance. Systems should also consider, within appropriate budgetary

considerations, other studies that their system actuary would recommend.

b. Systems and sponsors should, at regular intervals and within appropriate budgetary

considerations, conduct actuarial audits to evaluate the accuracy of the system’s actuarial work.

Accurate and precise actuarial work is essential for retirement systems and their sponsors to

anticipate and budget contribution requirements to fund the system. Incorrect actuarial

calculations can lead to unforeseen increases in funding requirements.

5. Stress Testing and Solvency Analysis

This study identifies in its findings factors impacting the ability of a public retirement system to meet its

long-term obligations, such as inadequate contribution levels, changes in plan demographics and long-

term investment returns less than the system’s assumed rate of return. Stress testing and solvency

analysis, considered industry best practices, model the system’s ability to meet its long-term obligations

under varying financial and actuarial outcomes.

Recommendation: The PRB recommends that systems conduct, at regular intervals and within

appropriate budgetary considerations, stress tests to understand their ability to meet long-term

obligations under different outcomes relating to investment return, actuarial demographic experience,

and other factors. The stress test should analyze the system’s ability to maintain solvency under these

different scenarios.

6. Pooled or Grouped Trust Funds

Smaller retirement systems may not have the advantage of the economies of scale available to larger

retirement systems, thus smaller systems may have greater challenges in keeping their expenses low

and achieving higher investment returns.

Recommendation: The PRB recommends that retirement systems, particularly smaller systems,

consider either joining existing, or voluntarily creating, pooled or grouped trust funds for investment

purposes. Under a grouped trust fund model, systems can co-invest their assets, to create economies of

scale, but continue to maintain some control over the administration of their systems. The Texas

Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) and the Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) are

the two existing statewide systems for employees of local entities that pool plan assets for investment

purposes. New systems may consider joining TMRS and TCDRS in accordance with statutory parameters.

However, merging an existing retirement system into either TMRS or TCDRS may present several

21

significant potential legal and other issues, including how to maintain equivalence of benefits between

old and new members, and how to address the existing liabilities of the merging system (TCDRS has no

legal mechanism to merge or absorb an existing plan into its system). Additionally, if a local entity

decides to terminate or freeze its existing defined benefit plan in order to join TMRS or TCDRS, it must

carefully analyze all legal implications of terminating or freezing the plan, and address the plan’s

unfunded liability.

7. Reserve or Stabilization Funds

Reserve funds are gaining attention among pension professionals as an industry best practice. By

creating a reserve fund, portions of investment gains significantly above the assumed rate of return can

be held in reserve and used in years when investment returns are significantly lower. Systems could use

the reserve fund to keep the actuarially determined contribution levels stable despite fluctuations in

investment returns from year to year.

Recommendation: The PRB recommends that systems and their sponsors should consider establishing

future policies to create a reserve or stabilization fund to help offset the cost of potential investment

losses. While systems and sponsors should balance their desire to create a reserve or stabilization fund

with other financial priorities, namely adequately funding the ADC, a retirement system is not required

to achieve or maintain a funded ratio of 100% in order to create a reserve fund.

APPENDICES

22

Introduction to Appendices

The following appendices provide supplemental information and additional datasets used by the PRB in

this study of the financial health of public retirement systems in Texas. The data included in these

appendices represents the best information available to the PRB at the time of the study.

Appendix A: Current Actuarial Valuation Information, Prior Actuarial Valuation Information,

and Supplemental Actuarial Valuation Information

The PRB believes the amortization period to be an appropriate measure of a retirement system’s ability

to meet its long‐term obligations, and therefore has used the amortization period as the key measure

for this study. Appendices A‐1 through A‐3 provide certain actuarial valuation report information for

each Texas public retirement system organized on the basis of their descending amortization periods.

Appendix A‐1 (Current Actuarial Information) shows the list of 93 actuarially funded public retirement

systems in Texas, listed in the order of descending amortization period from infinite to zero, and then by

descending actuarial value of assets. For each system, this appendix includes the following actuarial

information submitted to the PRB as of the most recent actuarial valuation report received as of August

1, 2014: current amortization period; plan status (whether the plan is active, closed, or frozen), effective

date of the actuarial valuation; funded ratio (actuarial value of assets divided by actuarial accrued

liability); actuarial value of assets (AVA); actuarial accrued liability (AAL); unfunded actuarial accrued

liability (UAAL); and the average percentage of the annual required contribution (ARC) contributed since

2007.

Appendix A‐2 (Prior Actuarial Information) is listed in the same order as Appendix A‐1, and contains

comparable information, but as of the second most recent actuarial valuations received by the PRB to

provide recent trend information. A current amortization period column is included in this appendix to

help locate a plan given its current amortization period.

Appendix A‐3 (Supplemental Actuarial Information) is listed in the same order as Appendices A‐1 and

A‐2 and provides the following additional actuarial valuation report information received by the PRB as

of August 1, 2014 for each system: number of active members; covered payroll of active members;

UAAL as a percent of covered payroll; and UAAL per active member.

Appendix B: Contribution and Benefit Decision‐Making for Texas Public Retirement Systems

Decisions relating to contribution levels and benefit provisions are governed differently across Texas’

diverse public retirement systems. Appendix B‐1 contains introductory information helpful to

understand the chart contained in appendix B‐2, which shows how, and by whom, decisions related to

contributions and benefits are made for statewide, municipal, Texas Local Fire Fighter’s Retirement Act

(TLFFRA), and other governmental plans. For each type of plan, the chart also identifies statutory

parameters for making changes to contributions and benefits.

23

Appendix C: Texas County & District Retirement System Financial Information

Due to the unique plan structure of TCDRS, information and charts contained in Appendix C‐1 through C‐

4 include a summary of TCDRS plan structure and the following financial information for each individual

system of TCDRS: plan sponsor matching ratios, plan sponsor and employee contribution rates, funded

ratios, amortization periods, social security participation data, and enacted plan changes. Appendix C‐4

contains additional TCDRS information on funded ratios, percent of ARC funded, and contribution rates.

Appendix D: Texas Municipal Retirement System Financial Information

Due to the unique plan structure of TMRS, information and charts contained in Appendix D‐1 through D‐

4 include a summary of TMRS plan structure and the following financial information for each individual

system of TMRS: plan sponsor matching ratios, plan sponsor and employee contribution rates, funded

ratios, amortization periods, social security participation data, and enacted plan changes. Appendix D‐4

contains additional TMRS information on funded ratios, percent of ARC funded, and contribution rates.

Appendix E: Contribution Information for Public Retirement Systems

The chart contained in this appendix shows a trend in overall contribution rate increases since 2000 for

the 93 actuarially funded public retirement systems in Texas, listed in the order of descending

amortization period from infinite to zero. The chart compares each retirement system’s current

contribution rates (including any contribution tiers) to the rates in 2000.

Appendix F: Historical Analysis of Public Retirement Systems

As part of the study, the PRB conducted a historical analysis of Texas Public retirement systems to

determine which factors have had the most impact on the systems’ current ability to meet their long‐

term obligations. Specifically, the analysis reviewed the following historical information: actuarial,

financial, contribution, benefit, and demographic data.

Appendix G: Correlation Analysis of Public Retirement System Data

As part of the study, the PRB conducted a correlation analysis of retirement systems’ financial and

actuarial data to determine which factors are most highly correlated with a system’s amortization period

and therefore most likely to affect its ability to meet its long‐term obligations. The PRB performed the

correlation analysis on the following financial and actuarial data points of the retirement systems:

percent of ARC funded, average annual non‐investment cash flow as a percent of total net assets,

assumed rate of return versus investment performance, and asset to liability growth.

Appendix H: Projected Additional Contributions Necessary to Achieve 25, 30, and 40 Year

Amortization Periods

Contributions play an important role in plan funding. The chart contained in this appendix lists the

systems with amortization periods greater than 30 years, in the order of descending amortization

period. For each system, the chart provides financial information, including funded ratio, UAAL, payroll

data, total contribution rate, 30‐year contribution rate, and projected additional contributions necessary

to achieve 25, 30 and 40 year amortization periods.

24

Appendix I: Sponsor Financial Information

The employer (sponsoring governmental entity) contribution is a key funding source for public

retirement systems. The chart contained in this appendix lists the sponsors of systems with amortization

periods greater than 30 years. For each sponsor, the chart provides financial information to offer

perspective on the relative size of the system’s annual contribution shortfall as it relates to the sponsor’s

General Fund expenditure. The General Fund information shown in the appendix may not necessarily

represent all funding sources for a retirement system but has been included to provide a comparable

dataset across various systems in Texas.

Specifically, the chart provides an overview of their overall General Fund expenditures, balance, and

debt; unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of the retirement system, projected 30‐year and 40‐

year dollar shortfall amounts of the retirement system; and what percentage of the General Fund

expenditure would be required for the system to get to 30 and 40 year amortization periods. For

sponsors with multiple plans, the UAAL and projected dollar shortfall amounts have been totaled to give

a clearer overview of the sponsor’s financial information.

Appendix J: Actuarial Assumptions and Methods

Actuarial methods and assumptions, combined with participant data and the plan benefit design, are

used to value current and future benefit obligations. This appendix contains the following information

relating to the various economic and demographic assumptions used by Texas public retirement

systems: investment return; inflation; actuarial cost methods; asset methods; amortization methods;

and payroll growth.

Appendix K: Glossary of Actuarial Terms

This appendix contains definitions of various actuarial terms used throughout the report arranged

alphabetically.

Appendix L: Legislation Requiring Financial Health Study

The 83rd Texas Legislature passed House Bill 13 (H.B. 13) on May 24, 2013. Section 7 of H.B. 13 directs

the PRB to conduct a study of the financial health of public retirement systems in Texas, including each

system’s ability to meet its long‐term obligations. This appendix contains the text of Section 7 of H.B. 13.

Appendix M: Texas Public Retirement System Responses

The Board established a six‐week comment period for retirement system responses to the preliminary

report published on August 28, 2014. The PRB received responses from the pension plan community,

including official comments from four retirement systems. The law requires the PRB to include a copy of

the retirement system responses in the final report to the Legislature. The full comments received from

the four public retirement systems are included in this appendix.

25

APPENDIX A‐1

Current Actuarial Valuation Information

As of December 2014

Plan Name

Plan

Status1

AV Effective

Date

Current

Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

Percent of ARC

Funded Since 2007

Employees Retirement System of Texas Active 8/31/2014 Infinite 77.24% 25,431,922,496$ 32,924,737,211$ 7,492,814,715$ 67.07%

Law Enforcement and Custodial Officer Sup. Ret. Fund Active 8/31/2014 Infinite 73.22% 883,594,932$ 1,206,769,921$ 323,174,989$ 59.94%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two Active 8/31/2014 Infinite 90.20% 348,430,575$ 386,286,372$ 37,855,797$ 88.37%

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System Active 8/31/2012 Infinite 66.75% 67,987,487$ 101,856,042$ 33,868,555$ 136.23%

Galveston Employees' Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2014 Infinite 81.40% 43,289,975$ 53,181,429$ 9,891,454$ 88.24%

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2013 Infinite 48.82% 42,756,974$ 87,585,700$ 44,828,726$ 71.41%

Harlingen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2011 Infinite 65.07% 22,270,694$ 34,223,995$ 11,953,301$ 84.37%

Greenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 Infinite 47.44% 12,201,104$ 25,717,409$ 13,516,305$ 82.56%

Atlanta Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 Infinite 72.98% 2,983,348$ 4,087,887$ 1,104,539$ 86.06%

Lufkin Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 89.6 38.81% 11,265,138$ 29,027,659$ 17,762,521$ 83.12%

Orange Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 82.3 57.25% 8,766,374$ 15,311,319$ 6,544,945$ 88.32%

University Park Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 81.3 44.26% 8,556,364$ 19,333,125$ 10,776,761$ 83.40%

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2

Active 12/31/2012 70.3 69.52% 7,217,289$ 10,380,983$ 3,163,694$ 96.09%

Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund3Active 1/1/2014 63.4 73.10% 156,223,428$ 213,725,584$ 57,502,156$ 76.84%

Longview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 63.3 56.22% 46,326,150$ 82,401,773$ 36,075,623$ 85.97%

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 63.2 63.00% 41,964,674$ 66,606,163$ 24,641,489$ 91.14%

Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2014 59.1 66.82% 78,481,491$ 117,444,545$ 38,963,054$ 89.10%

Galveston Employees Retirement Plan for Police Active 1/1/2012 53.5 46.90% 22,695,097$ 48,389,593$ 25,694,496$ 100.69%

Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund4 Active 12/31/2013 51.0 85.14% 3,074,284,000$ 3,610,845,000$ 536,561,000$ 89.29%

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2014 50.2 69.65% 39,591,204$ 56,839,842$ 17,248,638$ 97.96%

Beaumont Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 49.6 68.25% 92,033,413$ 134,837,879$ 42,804,466$ 87.21%

Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2014 49.3 63.86% 1,995,112,935$ 3,124,079,563$ 1,128,966,628$ 93.76%

McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 9/30/2012 43.9 66.15% 37,841,858$ 57,217,569$ 19,360,417$ 91.94%

Amarillo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund5 Active 1/1/2012 41.0 78.19% 120,396,531$ 153,978,252$ 33,581,721$ 93.60%

San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 40.9 65.01% 54,227,452$ 83,416,973$ 29,189,521$ 88.29%

Marshall Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 38.6 44.18% 6,990,904$ 15,822,990$ 8,832,086$ 89.07%

Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 37.4 61.77% 18,126,626$ 29,344,347$ 11,217,721$ 97.91%

Killeen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 9/30/2012 36.1 66.91% 27,528,834$ 41,142,502$ 13,613,668$ 98.64%

Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2011 35.2 39.13% 4,969,795$ 12,699,308$ 7,729,513$ 80.60%

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System6 Active 7/1/2013 35.0 57.70% 2,382,585,000$ 4,129,583,000$ 1,746,998,000$ 80.57%

Cleburne Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 34.1 57.36% 16,293,411$ 28,404,229$ 12,110,818$ 98.44%

Texas City Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 33.6 52.95% 14,859,762$ 28,063,375$ 13,203,613$ 89.95%

Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 10/1/2013 33.5 57.49% 52,920,100$ 92,054,430$ 39,134,330$ 98.25%

El Paso Police Pension Fund Active 1/1/2014 32.0 78.23% 696,437,201$ 890,192,914$ 193,755,713$ 70.82%

Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2011 31.8 39.91% 2,848,174$ 7,137,177$ 4,289,003$ 99.22%

Temple Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 9/30/2012 30.8 76.19% 34,400,736$ 45,148,511$ 10,747,775$ 99.71%

Big Spring Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2013 30.8 56.73% 9,889,540$ 17,433,912$ 7,544,372$ 103.76%

Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 7/1/2013 30.0 86.56% 3,430,436,708$ 3,963,082,000$ 532,645,292$ 98.17%

Dallas Co. Hospital Dist. Retirement Income Plan Active 1/1/2014 30.0 82.53% 670,795,379$ 812,780,867$ 141,985,488$ 103.62%

26

APPENDIX A‐1


As of December 2014

Plan Name

Plan

Status1

AV Effective

Date

Current

Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

Percent of ARC

Funded Since 2007

University Health System Pension Plan Active 1/1/2013 30.0 73.16% 205,905,204$ 281,433,759$ 75,528,555$ 110.92%

DART Employees' Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Closed 10/1/2013 30.0 70.73% 142,663,799$ 201,705,745$ 59,041,946$ 117.55%

Galveston Wharves Pension Plan Frozen 1/1/2014 30.0 81.85% 11,492,112$ 14,039,689$ 2,547,577$ 100.00%

Colorado River Municipal Water Dist. Pension Trust Active 1/1/2012 30.0 86.89% 8,273,581$ 9,521,444$ 1,247,863$ 105.34%

Cypress‐Fairbanks ISD Pension Plan Active 1/1/2010 30.0 70.79% 5,109,884$ 7,218,036$ 2,108,152$ 100.00%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One7 Closed 8/31/2014 30.0 0.00% ‐$ 245,474,274$ 245,474,274$ ‐

Teacher Retirement System of Texas Active 8/31//2014 29.8 80.23% 128,397,777,855$ 160,035,600,826$ 31,637,822,971$ 86.35%

Laredo Firefighters Retirement System Active 9/30/2012 29.8 54.07% 95,140,202$ 175,957,832$ 80,817,630$ 100.00%

Paris Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2013 29.2 44.94% 6,111,951$ 13,600,300$ 7,488,349$ 105.17%

Houston MTA Workers Union Pension Plan Closed 1/1/2014 29.0 73.60% 206,052,122$ 279,959,125$ 73,907,003$ 100.00%

Houston MTA Non‐Union Pension Plan Active 1/1/2014 29.0 80.17% 129,398,834$ 161,398,434$ 31,999,600$ 100.00%

Austin Police Officers' Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 28.9 66.39% 604,841,897$ 911,044,154$ 306,202,257$ 106.78%

Corsicana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2012 28.6 47.90% 6,956,513$ 14,524,415$ 7,567,902$ 100.00%

San Antonio Metro. Transit Retirement Plan (VIA) Active 10/1/2013 28.0 56.97% 192,730,010$ 338,329,011$ 145,599,001$ 82.11%

Nacogdoches County Hosp. District Retirement Plan Active 7/1/2011 27.8 54.77% 28,293,893$ 51,662,354$ 23,368,461$ 110.87%

Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan Active 1/1/2014 27.2 78.88% 47,689,367$ 60,458,351$ 12,768,984$ 57.83%

Weslaco Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 9/30/2012 26.8 63.33% 6,985,491$ 11,030,766$ 4,045,275$ 98.91%

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters' Retirement System Active 12/31/2012 26.7 55.00% 105,753,324$ 192,269,360$ 86,516,036$ 111.09%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Combined Plan Active 1/1/2014 26.0 75.59% 3,877,321,261$ 5,129,195,887$ 1,251,874,626$ 96.82%

Austin Employees' Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 26.0 70.38% 2,047,929,504$ 2,909,917,750$ 861,988,246$ 83.00%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Bargaining Units Frozen 1/1/2014 25.0 44.08% 26,656,933$ 60,467,879$ 33,810,946$ 100.00%

Lubbock Fire Pension Fund Active 1/1/2013 24.3 74.50% 161,745,303$ 217,103,746$ 55,358,443$ 103.51%

Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 24.0 77.14% 62,089,743$ 80,490,694$ 18,400,951$ 101.55%

Denison Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2012 23.9 71.13% 13,680,826$ 19,233,493$ 5,552,667$ 140.66%

Houston Police Officers Pension System8

Active 7/1/2014 23.0 80.96% 4,342,936,000$ 5,363,992,000$ 1,021,056,000$ 65.19%

El Paso Firemen's Pension Fund Active 1/1/2014 23.0 80.69% 479,228,995$ 593,936,328$ 114,707,333$ 76.57%

Lower Colorado River Auth. Retirement Plan and Trust Closed 4/1/2014 23.0 74.69% 382,104,178$ 511,580,272$ 129,476,094$ 110.76%

Plano Retirement Security Plan Active 12/31/2011 23.0 97.15% 84,500,525$ 86,978,777$ 2,478,252$ 100.00%

Tyler Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 22.9 73.61% 56,547,675$ 76,823,319$ 20,275,644$ 105.02%

Port Arthur Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2012 22.5 72.76% 36,116,894$ 49,639,831$ 13,522,937$ 114.40%

Texas Municipal Retirement System9

Active 12/31/2013 21.9 84.10% 21,293,624,657$ 25,320,767,136$ 4,027,142,479$ 95.30%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board Retirement Plan Active 1/1/2014 21.0 77.10% 364,042,882$ 472,189,314$ 108,146,432$ 100.00%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board DPS Retirement Plan Active 1/1/2014 21.0 72.38% 126,911,130$ 175,332,225$ 48,421,095$ 130.09%

City Public Service of San Antonio Pension Plan Active 1/1/2012 20.0 85.66% 1,185,076,518$ 1,383,413,018$ 198,336,500$ 101.85%

Harris County Hospital District Pension Plan Closed 1/1/2014 20.0 75.99% 499,862,057$ 657,816,628$ 157,954,571$ 99.51%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Admin Employees Active 1/1/2014 20.0 75.59% 16,883,852$ 22,334,650$ 5,450,798$ 101.42%

Waxahachie Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 10/1/2012 19.8 64.48% 10,462,784$ 16,226,624$ 5,763,840$ 163.52%

Texarkana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 19.6 84.62% 30,058,082$ 35,519,165$ 5,461,083$ 100.00%

Brazos River Authority Retirement Plan Frozen 3/1/2014 18.0 73.75% 20,626,849$ 27,970,438$ 7,343,589$ 99.28%

El Paso City Employees' Pension Fund Active 9/1/2013 17.0 73.76% 608,509,997$ 825,027,005$ 216,517,008$ 96.46%

27

APPENDIX A‐1


As of December 2014

Plan Name

Plan

Status1

AV Effective

Date

Current

Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

Percent of ARC

Funded Since 2007

Physicians Referral Service Retirement Benefit Plan Active 9/1/2013 15.0 66.84% 372,273,776$ 556,953,250$ 184,679,474$ 100.00%

San Benito Firemen's Pension Fund Active 12/31/2011 14.8 59.47% 2,523,198$ 4,242,759$ 1,719,561$ 100.00%

Refugio Co. Memorial Hosp. Dist. Retirement Plan10 Frozen 11/1/2012 13.6 100.00% 1,889,626$ 1,889,626$ ‐$ 152.33%

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority Active 1/1/2013 11.0 91.49% 25,566,845$ 27,944,142$ 2,377,297$ 100.29%

Texas County & District Retirement System Active 12/31/2013 10.8 89.39% 21,912,711,318$ 24,514,806,684$ 2,602,095,366$ 106.44%

Austin Fire Fighters Relief and Retirement Fund Active 12/31/2013 10.5 91.75% 742,073,494$ 808,771,153$ 66,697,659$ 107.05%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Supp Active 1/1/2014 10.0 61.99% 24,036,845$ 38,777,014$ 14,740,169$ 100.00%

Northeast Medical Center Hospital Retirement Plan Frozen 7/1/2013 10.0 79.08% 9,321,452$ 11,787,769$ 2,466,317$ 100.00%

Guadalupe‐Blanco River Authority Closed 1/1/2014 9.6 83.41% 22,736,935$ 27,259,178$ 4,522,243$ 154.63%

Northwest Texas Healthcare System Retirement Plan Frozen 10/1/2013 7.4 61.40% 17,736,458$ 28,885,608$ 11,149,150$ N/A

Travis Cty ESD #6 Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Active 1/1/2014 7.3 55.97% 7,554,521$ 13,496,644$ 5,942,123$ 178.43%

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund Active 10/1/2013 7.3 91.75% 2,588,307,109$ 2,821,195,803$ 232,888,694$ 103.87%

Port of Houston Authority Retirement Plan Closed 8/1/2013 4.0 98.06% 151,454,771$ 154,450,530$ 2,995,759$ 100.00%

Arlington Employees Deferred Income Plan Active 7/1/2013 0.0 117.43% 2,448,438$ 2,085,050$ (363,388)$ 100.00%

9 26,855,437,585$ 34,824,445,966$ 7,969,008,381$

16 5,794,983,398$ 7,823,835,822$ 2,028,837,130$

34 143,495,508,974$ 181,157,231,074$ 37,661,722,100$

20 29,801,665,880$ 35,996,842,542$ 6,195,176,662$

13 25,878,186,348$ 29,010,460,160$ 3,132,273,812$

1 2,448,438$ 2,085,050$ (363,388)$

Grand Totals 93 231,825,782,185$ 288,812,815,564$ 56,987,018,085$

Notes:

[7] JRS I is a pay‐as‐you go system with no assets devoted to the plan.

[8] Houston Police amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 37.66% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

[9] Amortization period is a weighted average amortization period of member cities.

[10] Refugio County Memorial Hospital District uses the individual aggregate method. The plan's amortization period is derived from the normal cost, the present value of future normal costs, and the plan's assumed pre‐retirement interest rate of 6%.

Subtotal: Plans with infinite amortization periods

Subtotal: Plans with amortization periods > 40 years, but not infinite

Subtotal: Plans with amortization periods > 25 years < 40 years



Subtotal: Plans with amortization periods = 0 years

[1] Plan status indicates whether plan is active (admitting new hires), closed to new hires (but still accruing benefits), or frozen (not accruing benefits).

[2] Amortization period calculated by the PRB in consultation with the plan actuary, reflecting a future contribution increase.


[4] Dallas Employees' amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 26.08% of payroll, and projecting the contribution rate at the pension obligation bond payoff in 2035.


[6] Houston Municipal Employees amortization period calculated by the PRB assuming a total contribution rate of 26.32% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

28

APPENDIX A-2

Prior Actuarial Valuation Information

As of December 2014

Plan Name

Current

Amort

Period

Plan

Status1AV Effective

Date

Prior Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (UAAL)

Percent of

ARC Funded

Since 2007

Employees Retirement System of Texas Infinite Active 8/31/2013 Infinite 77.36% 24,667,639,104$ 31,886,026,375$ 7,218,387,271$ 67.07%

Law Enforcement and Custodial Officer Sup. Ret. Fund Infinite Active 8/31/2013 Infinite 70.42% 843,016,798$ 1,197,163,837$ 354,147,039$ 59.94%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two Infinite Active 8/31/2013 Infinite 88.57% 318,025,658$ 359,058,635$ 41,032,977$ 88.37%

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System Infinite Active 8/31/2010 Infinite 78.90% 64,113,803$ 81,264,230$ 17,150,427$ 136.23%

Galveston Employees' Retirement Fund Infinite Active 1/1/2013 Infinite 77.50% 40,313,875$ 52,016,611$ 11,702,736$ 88.24%

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Infinite Active 1/1/2011 71.0 62.09% 46,170,391$ 74,359,256$ 28,188,865$ 71.41%

Harlingen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite Active 12/31/2009 Infinite 65.23% 20,187,246$ 30,948,888$ 10,761,642$ 84.37%

Greenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite Active 12/31/2010 45.7 54.69% 13,032,946$ 23,830,453$ 10,797,507$ 82.56%

Atlanta Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite Active 12/31/2009 30.0 74.34% 2,638,258$ 3,548,734$ 910,476$ 86.06%

Lufkin Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 89.6 Active 12/31/2010 53.7 37.34% 10,101,470$ 27,051,949$ 16,950,479$ 83.12%

Orange Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 82.3 Active 12/31/2010 34.3 66.05% 9,035,613$ 13,679,257$ 4,643,644$ 88.32%

University Park Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 81.3 Active 12/31/2010 40.6 50.67% 9,008,704$ 17,779,730$ 8,771,026$ 83.40%

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund2 70.3 Active 12/31/2010 39.4 76.81% 7,438,844$ 9,685,299$ 2,246,455$ 96.09%

Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund3 63.4 Active 1/1/2012 Infinite 67.40% 134,886,668$ 200,139,815$ 65,253,147$ 76.84%

Longview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 63.3 Active 12/31/2011 Infinite 52.02% 39,578,091$ 76,085,585$ 36,507,494$ 85.97%

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 63.2 Active 12/31/2010 38.9 68.34% 41,107,385$ 60,152,150$ 19,044,765$ 91.14%

Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 59.1 Active 1/1/2012 86.3 72.23% 73,066,776$ 101,158,743$ 28,091,967$ 89.10%

Galveston Employees Retirement Plan for Police 53.5 Active 1/1/2011 41.2 50.27% 24,390,425$ 48,521,735$ 24,131,310$ 100.69%

Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund4 51.0 Active 12/31/2012 Infinite 80.89% 2,846,124,000$ 3,518,356,000$ 672,232,000$ 89.29%

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund 50.2 Active 1/1/2012 42.8 68.87% 37,288,602$ 54,146,959$ 16,858,357$ 97.96%

Beaumont Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 49.6 Active 12/31/2010 53.6 71.24% 91,469,680$ 128,396,184$ 36,926,504$ 87.21%

Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund 49.3 Active 1/1/2013 36.0 63.26% 1,854,871,487$ 2,932,293,736$ 1,077,422,249$ 93.76%

McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 43.9 Active 9/30/2010 39.6 71.05% 36,635,594$ 51,565,906$ 14,930,312$ 91.94%

Amarillo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund5 41.0 Active 1/1/2010 35.9 84.01% 116,150,945$ 138,263,770$ 22,112,825$ 93.60%

San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 40.9 Active 12/31/2011 49.0 64.89% 49,895,449$ 76,889,897$ 26,994,448$ 88.29%

Marshall Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 38.6 Active 12/31/2010 23.5 46.95% 6,653,612$ 14,171,896$ 7,518,284$ 89.07%

Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund 37.4 Active 12/31/2011 38.2 60.58% 15,392,762$ 25,409,581$ 10,016,819$ 97.91%

Killeen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 36.1 Active 9/30/2010 27.0 64.53% 23,980,822$ 37,161,946$ 13,181,124$ 98.64%

Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 35.2 Active 12/31/2009 123.2 39.27% 4,458,483$ 11,352,123$ 6,893,640$ 80.60%

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System6 35.0 Active 7/1/2012 Infinite 59.09% 2,344,128,000$ 3,966,864,000$ 1,622,736,000$ 80.57%

Cleburne Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 34.1 Active 12/31/2010 25.0 56.81% 14,581,551$ 25,667,005$ 11,085,454$ 98.44%

Texas City Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 33.6 Active 12/31/2010 29.1 53.60% 13,557,841$ 25,296,553$ 11,738,712$ 89.95%

Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 33.5 Active 9/30/2011 32.9 55.91% 49,429,210$ 88,412,062$ 38,982,852$ 98.25%

El Paso Police Pension Fund 32.0 Active 1/1/2012 Infinite 78.21% 626,346,104$ 800,860,178$ 174,514,074$ 70.82%

Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 31.8 Active 12/31/2009 27.2 39.64% 2,460,557$ 6,207,931$ 3,747,374$ 99.22%

Temple Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 30.8 Active 9/30/2010 27.4 76.71% 33,272,723$ 43,373,453$ 10,100,730$ 99.71%

Big Spring Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 30.8 Active 1/1/2012 27.0 61.35% 11,133,176$ 18,148,372$ 7,015,196$ 103.76%

Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund 30.0 Active 7/1/2012 30.0 86.95% 3,263,265,000$ 3,752,907,000$ 489,642,000$ 98.17%

Dallas Co. Hospital Dist. Retirement Income Plan 30.0 Active 1/1/2013 30.0 79.97% 590,113,209$ 737,931,343$ 147,818,134$ 103.62%

29

APPENDIX A-2


As of December 2014

Plan Name

Current

Amort

Period

Plan

Status1AV Effective

Date

Prior Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (UAAL)

Percent of

ARC Funded

Since 2007

University Health System Pension Plan 30.0 Active 1/1/2012 30.0 71.00% 183,349,789$ 258,253,376$ 74,903,587$ 110.92%

DART Employees' Defined Benefit Retirement Plan 30.0 Closed 10/1/2012 30.0 69.16% 137,945,583$ 199,446,996$ 61,501,413$ 117.55%

Galveston Wharves Pension Plan 30.0 Frozen 1/1/2013 30.0 71.35% 9,807,649$ 13,746,070$ 3,938,421$ 100.00%

Colorado River Municipal Water Dist. Pension Trust 30.0 Active 1/1/2011 30.0 88.59% 8,600,281$ 9,708,203$ 1,107,922$ 105.34%

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Pension Plan 30.0 Active 1/1/2008 30.0 76.06% 4,997,800$ 6,570,737$ 1,572,937$ 100.00%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One7 30.0 Closed 8/31/2013 30.0 0.00% -$ 252,943,056$ 252,943,056$ -

Teacher Retirement System of Texas 29.8 Active 8/31/2013 28.0 80.79% 121,729,818,906$ 150,666,094,134$ 28,936,275,228$ 86.35%

Laredo Firefighters Retirement System 29.8 Active 3/31/2010 23.5 63.16% 84,625,644$ 133,976,600$ 49,350,956$ 100.00%

Paris Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund 29.2 Active 1/1/2011 27.9 51.96% 6,736,683$ 12,964,325$ 6,227,642$ 105.17%

Houston MTA Workers Union Pension Plan 29.0 Closed 1/1/2013 30.0 67.95% 181,660,677$ 267,359,430$ 85,698,753$ 100.00%

Houston MTA Non-Union Pension Plan 29.0 Active 1/1/2013 30.0 75.17% 113,144,758$ 150,508,931$ 37,364,173$ 100.00%

Austin Police Officers' Retirement Fund 28.9 Active 12/31/2012 29.4 65.20% 558,475,643$ 856,576,826$ 298,101,183$ 106.78%

Corsicana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 28.6 Active 12/31/2010 29.0 51.95% 6,349,644$ 12,222,782$ 5,873,138$ 100.00%

San Antonio Metro. Transit Retirement Plan (VIA) 28.0 Active 10/1/2012 29.0 56.11% 180,666,604$ 321,986,219$ 141,319,615$ 82.11%

Nacogdoches County Hosp. District Retirement Plan 27.8 Active 7/1/2010 26.3 51.04% 25,166,093$ 49,307,963$ 24,141,870$ 110.87%

Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan 27.2 Active 1/1/2013 29.1 76.33% 44,045,091$ 57,701,601$ 13,656,510$ 57.83%

Weslaco Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 26.8 Active 9/30/2009 31.0 53.60% 4,977,251$ 9,285,971$ 4,308,720$ 98.91%

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters' Retirement System 26.7 Active 12/31/2010 22.3 58.61% 104,079,845$ 177,565,330$ 73,485,485$ 111.09%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System-Combined Plan 26.0 Active 1/1/2013 23.0 78.12% 3,795,024,584$ 4,858,205,631$ 1,063,181,047$ 96.82%

Austin Employees' Retirement Fund 26.0 Active 12/31/2012 27.0 63.93% 1,897,722,867$ 2,968,379,692$ 1,070,656,825$ 83.00%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Bargaining Units 25.0 Frozen 1/1/2013 26.0 46.62% 28,705,007$ 61,569,580$ 32,864,573$ 100.00%

Lubbock Fire Pension Fund 24.3 Active 12/31/2010 22.8 79.40% 156,812,670$ 197,495,395$ 40,682,725$ 103.51%

Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 24.0 Active 12/31/2011 31.7 72.01% 54,169,459$ 75,228,727$ 21,059,268$ 101.55%

Denison Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 23.9 Active 1/1/2010 9.9 81.32% 13,973,620$ 17,183,896$ 3,210,276$ 140.66%

Houston Police Officers Pension System8 23.0 Active 7/1/2013 Infinite 81.26% 4,070,951,000$ 5,009,961,000$ 939,010,000$ 65.19%

El Paso Firemen's Pension Fund 23.0 Active 1/1/2012 76.0 79.88% 431,209,946$ 539,792,477$ 108,582,531$ 76.57%

Lower Colorado River Auth. Retirement Plan and Trust 23.0 Closed 4/1/2013 24.0 69.75% 354,803,739$ 508,713,684$ 153,909,945$ 110.76%

Plano Retirement Security Plan 23.0 Active 12/31/2009 25.0 98.26% 75,217,522$ 76,550,304$ 1,332,782$ 100.00%

Tyler Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 22.9 Active 12/31/2011 34.0 231.62% 49,221,368$ 21,250,910$ (27,970,458)$ 105.02%

Port Arthur Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 22.5 Active 1/1/2010 22.5 72.42% 33,233,278$ 45,889,421$ 12,656,143$ 114.40%

Texas Municipal Retirement System9 21.9 Active 12/31/2012 30.0 87.22% 19,784,846,758$ 22,683,755,207$ 2,898,908,449$ 95.30%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board Retirement Plan 21.0 Active 1/1/2013 22.0 71.81% 323,793,717$ 450,881,870$ 127,088,153$ 100.00%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board DPS Retirement Plan 21.0 Active 1/1/2013 22.0 67.17% 111,365,683$ 165,805,345$ 54,439,662$ 130.09%

City Public Service of San Antonio Pension Plan 20.0 Active 1/1/2011 20.0 88.23% 1,146,038,622$ 1,298,935,939$ 152,897,317$ 101.85%

Harris County Hospital District Pension Plan 20.0 Closed 1/1/2013 20.0 71.47% 456,765,053$ 639,143,956$ 182,378,903$ 99.51%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Admin Employees 20.0 Active 1/1/2013 20.0 74.75% 14,888,802$ 19,918,129$ 5,029,327$ 101.42%

Waxahachie Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 19.8 Active 10/1/2010 13.8 61.26% 8,159,658$ 13,319,237$ 5,159,579$ 163.52%

Texarkana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 19.6 Active 12/31/2011 20.0 82.87% 26,721,817$ 32,246,803$ 5,524,986$ 100.00%

Brazos River Authority Retirement Plan 18.0 Frozen 3/1/2013 19.0 69.94% 19,332,217$ 27,639,847$ 8,307,630$ 99.28%

30

APPENDIX A-2


As of December 2014

Plan Name

Current

Amort

Period

Plan

Status1AV Effective

Date

Prior Amort

Period

Funded

Ratio

Actuarial Value of

Assets

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (AAL)

Unfunded

Actuarial Accrued

Liability (UAAL)

Percent of

ARC Funded

Since 2007

El Paso City Employees' Pension Fund 17.0 Active 9/1/2012 21.0 73.80% 581,725,101$ 788,204,441$ 206,479,340$ 96.46%

Physicians Referral Service Retirement Benefit Plan 15.0 Active 9/1/2012 15.0 62.81% 346,630,776$ 551,868,687$ 205,237,911$ 100.00%

San Benito Firemen's Pension Fund 14.8 Active 12/31/2008 18.7 45.82% 1,696,067$ 3,701,218$ 2,005,151$ 100.00%

Refugio Co. Memorial Hosp. Dist. Retirement Plan10 13.6 Frozen 11/1/2010 13.3 59.30% 2,498,932$ 4,213,764$ 1,714,832$ 152.33%

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority 11.0 Active 1/1/2012 12.0 85.20% 21,791,159$ 25,576,425$ 3,785,266$ 100.29%

Texas County & District Retirement System 10.8 Active 12/31/2012 14.8 88.22% 20,250,275,202$ 22,953,002,076$ 2,702,726,874$ 106.44%

Austin Fire Fighters Relief and Retirement Fund 10.5 Active 12/31/2011 20.9 87.32% 651,557,181$ 746,143,179$ 94,585,998$ 107.05%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System-Supp 10.0 Active 1/1/2013 10.0 57.86% 21,562,556$ 37,264,925$ 15,702,369$ 100.00%

Northeast Medical Center Hospital Retirement Plan 10.0 Frozen 7/1/2012 10.0 76.28% 8,635,458$ 11,321,355$ 2,685,897$ 100.00%

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority 9.6 Closed 1/1/2013 11.3 79.38% 19,706,816$ 24,824,979$ 5,118,163$ 154.63%

Northwest Texas Healthcare System Retirement Plan 7.4 Frozen 10/1/2012 9.2 58.50% 17,190,249$ 29,385,126$ 12,194,877$ N/A

Travis Cty ESD #6 Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 7.3 Active 1/1/2012 14.9 36.75% 3,877,699$ 10,550,971$ 6,673,272$ 178.43%

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund 7.3 Active 10/1/2012 7.1 91.94% 2,447,587,725$ 2,662,264,359$ 214,676,634$ 103.87%

Port of Houston Authority Retirement Plan 4.0 Closed 8/1/2012 2.0 93.01% 129,522,543$ 139,259,442$ 9,736,899$ 100.00%

Arlington Employees Deferred Income Plan 0.0 Active 7/1/2012 0.0 119.02% 2,380,534$ 2,000,068$ (380,466)$ 100.00%

12 36,015,310,347$ 47,178,745,154$ 11,163,434,807$

11 790,092,872$ 1,103,279,506$ 313,186,634$

37 151,080,891,337$ 186,898,897,829$ 35,818,006,492$

19 7,958,916,705$ 10,210,855,993$ 2,251,939,288$

13 23,291,412,393$ 26,480,035,242$ 3,188,622,849$

1 2,380,534$ 2,000,068$ (380,466)$

Grand Totals 93 219,136,623,654$ 271,871,813,724$ 52,735,190,070$

Notes:

[7] JRS I is a pay-as-you go system with no assets devoted to the plan.

[8] Houston Police current amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 37.66% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

[9] Current amortization period is a weighted average amortization period of member cities.

[10] Refugio County Memorial Hospital District uses the individual aggregate method. The plan's amortization period is derived from the normal cost, the present value of future normal costs, and the plan's assumed pre-retirement interest rate of 6%.


[2] Current amortization period calculated by the PRB in consultation with the plan actuary, reflecting a future contribution increase.


[4] Dallas Employees' current amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 26.08% of payroll, and projecting the contribution rate at the pension obligation bond payoff in 2035.


[6] Houston Municipal Employees current amortization period calculated by the PRB assuming a total contribution rate of 26.32% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.







31

APPENDIX A‐3

Supplemental Actuarial Valuation Information

As of December 2014

Plan Name Plan Status1

Current

Amort

period

Active

members2 Covered Payroll

Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

UAAL as % of

Payroll

UAAL Per Active

Member3

Employees Retirement System of Texas Active Infinite 134,162 6,171,443,191$ 7,492,814,715$ 121.41% 55,849$

Law Enforcement and Custodial Officer Sup. Ret. Fund Active Infinite 37,084 1,609,490,560$ 323,174,989$ 20.08% 8,715$

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two Active Infinite 554 79,122,500$ 37,855,797$ 47.84% 68,332$

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System Active Infinite 4,446 N/A 33,868,555$ N/A 7,618$

Galveston Employees' Retirement Fund Active Infinite 442 18,488,278$ 9,891,454$ 53.50% 22,379$

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Active Infinite 166 9,518,672$ 44,828,726$ 470.96% 270,053$

Harlingen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active Infinite 106 4,925,968$ 11,953,301$ 242.66% 112,767$

Greenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active Infinite 57 3,576,528$ 13,516,305$ 377.92% 237,128$

Atlanta Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active Infinite 32 569,671$ 1,104,539$ 193.89% 34,517$

Lufkin Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 89.6 75 4,321,795$ 17,762,521$ 411.00% 236,834$

Orange Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 82.3 37 1,996,008$ 6,544,945$ 327.90% 176,890$

University Park Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 81.3 34 2,874,862$ 10,776,761$ 374.86% 316,964$

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund4 Active 70.3 24 1,264,151$ 3,163,694$ 250.26% 131,821$

Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund5 Active 63.4 314 25,482,413$ 57,502,156$ 225.65% 183,128$

Longview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 63.3 167 10,690,633$ 36,075,623$ 337.45% 216,022$

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 63.2 148 8,962,581$ 24,641,489$ 274.94% 166,497$

Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 59.1 178 14,597,213$ 38,963,054$ 266.92% 218,894$

Galveston Employees Retirement Plan for Police Active 53.5 127 8,233,404$ 25,694,496$ 312.08% 202,319$

Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund6 Active 51.0 6,993 342,219,200$ 536,561,000$ 156.79% 76,728$

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund Active 50.2 106 6,542,789$ 17,248,638$ 263.63% 162,723$

Beaumont Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 49.6 234 17,889,017$ 42,804,466$ 239.28% 182,925$

Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund Active 49.3 6,199 373,848,113$ 1,128,966,628$ 301.99% 182,121$

McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 43.9 162 9,361,646$ 19,360,417$ 206.81% 119,509$

Amarillo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund7 Active 41.0 243 15,058,726$ 33,581,721$ 223.01% 138,196$

San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 40.9 177 10,412,929$ 29,189,521$ 280.32% 164,913$

Marshall Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 38.6 46 2,398,925$ 8,832,086$ 368.17% 192,002$

Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund Active 37.4 81 5,660,398$ 11,217,721$ 198.18% 138,490$

Killeen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 36.1 204 11,025,643$ 13,613,668$ 123.47% 66,734$

Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 35.2 36 1,654,550$ 7,729,513$ 467.17% 214,709$

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System8Active 35.0 11,781 549,971,000$ 1,746,998,000$ 317.65% 148,289$

Cleburne Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 34.1 53 3,878,009$ 12,110,818$ 312.29% 228,506$

Texas City Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 33.6 68 4,454,223$ 13,203,613$ 296.43% 194,171$

Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 33.5 178 12,623,389$ 39,134,330$ 310.01% 219,856$

El Paso Police Pension Fund Active 32.0 1,052 70,817,206$ 193,755,713$ 273.60% 184,178$

Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 31.8 31 1,609,304$ 4,289,003$ 266.51% 138,355$

Temple Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 30.8 114 6,503,608$ 10,747,775$ 165.26% 94,279$

32

APPENDIX A‐3


As of December 2014


Current

Amort

period

Active


Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

UAAL as % of

Payroll

UAAL Per Active

Member3

Big Spring Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 30.8 52 3,173,050$ 7,544,372$ 237.76% 145,084$

Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 30.0 3,745 271,828,000$ 532,645,292$ 195.95% 142,228$

Dallas Co. Hospital Dist. Retirement Income Plan Active 30.0 9,722 519,192,902$ 141,985,488$ 27.35% 14,605$

University Health System Pension Plan Active 30.0 4,605 239,317,254$ 75,528,555$ 31.56% 16,401$

DART Employees' Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Closed 30.0 326 19,437,913$ 59,041,946$ 303.75% 181,110$

Galveston Wharves Pension Plan Frozen 30.0 58 3,484,519$ 2,547,577$ 73.11% 43,924$

Colorado River Municipal Water Dist. Pension Trust Active 30.0 68 2,954,058$ 1,247,863$ 42.24% 18,351$

Cypress‐Fairbanks ISD Pension Plan Active 30.0 1,672 9,058,830$ 2,108,152$ 23.27% 1,261$

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One9 Closed 30.0 12 1,764,000$ 245,474,274$ 13915.78% 20,456,190$

Teacher Retirement System of Texas Active 29.8 857,342 38,522,207,389$ 31,637,822,971$ 82.13% 36,902$

Laredo Firefighters Retirement System Active 29.8 377 30,993,969$ 80,817,630$ 260.75% 214,370$

Paris Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund Active 29.2 50 2,323,183$ 7,488,349$ 322.33% 149,767$

Houston MTA Workers Union Pension Plan Closed 29.0 2,274 106,317,000$ 73,907,003$ 69.52% 32,501$

Houston MTA Non‐Union Pension Plan Active 29.0 694 45,601,509$ 31,999,600$ 70.17% 46,109$

Austin Police Officers' Retirement Fund Active 28.9 1,732 145,794,226$ 306,202,257$ 210.02% 176,791$

Corsicana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 28.6 58 3,338,447$ 7,567,902$ 226.69% 130,481$

San Antonio Metro. Transit Retirement Plan (VIA) Active 28.0 1,439 78,085,731$ 145,599,001$ 186.46% 101,181$

Nacogdoches County Hosp. District Retirement Plan Active 27.8 690 33,822,626$ 23,368,461$ 69.09% 33,867$

Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan Active 27.2 1,363 90,725,413$ 12,768,984$ 14.07% 9,368$

Weslaco Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 26.8 68 3,155,878$ 4,045,275$ 128.18% 59,489$

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters' Retirement System Active 26.7 408 29,459,098$ 86,516,036$ 293.68% 212,049$

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Combined Plan Active 26.0 5,397 377,943,454$ 1,251,874,626$ 331.23% 231,957$

Austin Employees' Retirement Fund Active 26.0 8,592 490,553,170$ 861,988,246$ 175.72% 100,325$

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Bargaining Units Frozen 25.0 322 N/A 33,810,946$ N/A 105,003$

Lubbock Fire Pension Fund Active 24.3 362 24,740,222$ 55,358,443$ 223.76% 152,924$

Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 24.0 169 13,790,301$ 18,400,951$ 133.43% 108,881$

Denison Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 23.9 56 3,168,287$ 5,552,667$ 175.26% 99,155$

Houston Police Officers Pension System10Active 23.0 5,343 399,447,000$ 1,021,056,000$ 255.62% 191,102$

El Paso Firemen's Pension Fund Active 23.0 871 53,872,177$ 114,707,333$ 212.93% 131,696$

Lower Colorado River Auth. Retirement Plan and Trust Closed 23.0 1,529 123,227,251$ 129,476,094$ 105.07% 84,680$

Plano Retirement Security Plan Active 23.0 1,957 108,860,210$ 2,478,252$ 2.28% 1,266$

Tyler Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 22.9 155 10,937,907$ 20,275,644$ 185.37% 130,811$

Port Arthur Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 22.5 104 7,301,320$ 13,522,937$ 185.21% 130,028$

Texas Municipal Retirement System11Active 21.9 102,870 5,359,000,000$ 4,027,142,479$ 75.15% 39,148$

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board Retirement Plan Active 21.0 987 64,184,429$ 108,146,432$ 168.49% 109,571$

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board DPS Retirement Plan Active 21.0 349 25,291,986$ 48,421,095$ 191.45% 138,742$

33

APPENDIX A‐3


As of December 2014


Current

Amort

period

Active


Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

UAAL as % of

Payroll

UAAL Per Active

Member3

City Public Service of San Antonio Pension Plan Active 20.0 3,458 246,908,095$ 198,336,500$ 80.33% 57,356$

Harris County Hospital District Pension Plan Closed 20.0 3,245 210,728,000$ 157,954,571$ 74.96% 48,676$

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Admin Employees Active 20.0 241 16,183,596$ 5,450,798$ 33.68% 22,617$

Waxahachie Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 19.8 48 3,188,426$ 5,763,840$ 180.77% 120,080$

Texarkana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Active 19.6 78 4,019,902$ 5,461,083$ 135.85% 70,014$

Brazos River Authority Retirement Plan Frozen 18.0 116 9,941,752$ 7,343,589$ 73.87% 63,307$

El Paso City Employees' Pension Fund Active 17.0 4,134 147,740,362$ 216,517,008$ 146.55% 52,375$

Physicians Referral Service Retirement Benefit Plan Active 15.0 1,396 357,049,746$ 184,679,474$ 51.72% 132,292$

San Benito Firemen's Pension Fund Active 14.8 26 1,194,813$ 1,719,561$ 143.92% 66,137$

Refugio Co. Memorial Hosp. Dist. Retirement Plan12 Frozen 13.6 97 N/A ‐$ N/A ‐$

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority Active 11.0 205 7,474,445$ 2,377,297$ 31.81% 11,597$

Texas County & District Retirement System Active 10.8 124,525 5,483,787,404$ 2,602,095,366$ 47.45% 20,896$

Austin Fire Fighters Relief and Retirement Fund Active 10.5 1,074 84,036,628$ 66,697,659$ 79.37% 62,102$

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Supp Active 10.0 38 521,370$ 14,740,169$ 2827.20% 387,899$

Northeast Medical Center Hospital Retirement Plan Frozen 10.0 0 N/A 2,466,317$ N/A ‐

Guadalupe‐Blanco River Authority Closed 9.6 113 7,423,408$ 4,522,243$ 60.92% 40,020$

Northwest Texas Healthcare System Retirement Plan Frozen 7.4 169 N/A 11,149,150$ N/A 65,971$

Travis Cty ESD #6 Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Active 7.3 68 5,199,069$ 5,942,123$ 114.29% 87,384$

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund Active 7.3 3,955 306,055,572$ 232,888,694$ 76.09% 58,885$

Port of Houston Authority Retirement Plan Closed 4.0 494 33,689,999$ 2,995,759$ 8.89% 6,064$

Arlington Employees Deferred Income Plan Active 0.0 690 2,791,558$ (363,388)$ ‐13.02% (527)$

34

APPENDIX A‐3


As of December 2014


Current

Amort

period

Active


Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability

(UAAL)

UAAL as % of

Payroll

UAAL Per Active

Member3

9 177,049 7,897,135,368$ 7,969,008,381$

16 15,218 853,755,480$ 2,028,837,130$

35 914,710 41,701,127,874$ 37,695,533,046$

20 127,468 7,189,580,969$ 6,346,045,190$

12 130,764 5,929,382,708$ 2,947,594,338$

1 690 2,791,558$ (363,388)$

93 1,365,899 63,573,773,957$ 56,986,654,697$

Source: Pension Review Board, December 2014

Notes:

[12] Refugio County Memorial Hospital District uses the individual aggregate method. The plan's amortization period is derived from the normal cost, the present value of future normal costs, and

the plan's assumed pre‐retirement interest rate of 6%.







[3] UAAL can be amortized by either employer or employee contributions.



[6] Dallas Employees' amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 26.08% of payroll, and projecting the contribution rate at the pension obligation bond payoff in 2035.



Grand Totals

[2] Active member information taken from current actuarial valuation; may not represent most current membership report.

[8] Houston Municipal Employees amortization period calculated by the PRB assuming a total contribution rate of 26.32% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

[9] JRS I is a pay‐as‐you go system with no assets devoted to the plan.

[10] Houston Police amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 37.66% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

[11] Amortization period is a weighted average amortization period of member cities.

35

APPENDIX B‐1

Contribution and Benefit Decision‐Making for Texas Public Retirement Systems

Decisions relating to contribution levels and benefit provisions are governed differently across Texas’ diverse public retirement systems. The following chart shows how, and by whom, decisions related to contributions and benefits are made for statewide, municipal, Texas Local Fire Fighter’s Retirement Act (TLFFRA), and other governmental plans. For each type of plan, the chart also identifies statutory and constitutional parameters for making changes to contributions and benefits.

Texas has numerous statutes and laws governing these statewide and local retirement systems. Texas public retirement systems are enabled by the State Constitution. Title 8 of the Texas Government Code applies to public retirement systems. Statewide retirement systems’ governing statutes are contained in Subtitle B through Subtitle H of Title 8. Certain local retirement systems are specifically enabled by Vernon’s Texas Revised Civil Statute. In addition to those systems, the TLFFRA statute governs paid/part‐paid firefighter systems across the state. Chapter 810 of the Government Code enables other local retirement plans primarily offered by local authorities, such as transportation and river authorities, and special districts, such as water, hospital, utility, and appraisal districts.

Contribution and Benefit Provisions

Contribution levels, or rates, are the rates at which the employee and employer contribute to the retirement system. For some systems, the exact contribution rate or a minimum rate may be set in statute; while for others, the contribution rate is determined by or can be changed by the city council, board of trustees, or plan members. Retirement systems established under Chapter 810 of the Government Code have complete local control over their contribution rates.

Benefit provisions can include retirement eligibility, years of credited service, final average salary, benefit multipliers, cost‐of‐living adjustments (COLAs), and deferred retirement option plan (DROP) requirements. For some retirement systems, such as the statewide systems and certain municipal systems, benefit provisions are specifically outlined in their governing statutes. In contrast, certain other municipal systems have authority to make changes to their benefits locally, either through “meet and confer” provisions or through other procedures outlined in their governing statute. Retirement systems established under Chapter 810 of the Government Code have complete local control over their benefit provisions.

Constitutional Protection (Texas Constitution, Article XVI, Sec. 66)

In 2003, the Texas Constitution was amended to include Section 66 of Article 16, “Protected Benefits under Certain Public Retirement Systems.” This section applies only to certain local public retirement systems and does not cover health or life insurance benefits. The key provision of this section of the Constitution prohibits local retirement systems from reducing or otherwise impairing benefits accrued if the person could have terminated employment or had terminated employment and would have been eligible for those benefits without accumulating additional service under the retirement system.

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund is specifically exempt from the provisions of this section. Additionally, the section allowed for a one‐time opt‐out election in May 2004 for any retirement system and the sponsoring city. The following cities opted‐out of the section: Denison, Galveston, Houston, Marshall, McAllen, Paris, and Port Arthur.

36

APPENDIX B‐2


Retirement System Governing Statute Employer Contributions Employee Contributions Benefit Increases

Benefit

Reductions

Constitutional

Benefit

Protection

(Article 66)

Employees Retirement System

of Texas

Government Code Title 8,

Subtitle B Chapters 811‐815

Determined by Legislature, with a constitutional

minimum of six percent and a maximum of 10 percent

of the aggregate compensation paid to members. In an

emergency, as determined by the Governor, the

Legislature may appropriate such additional sums as

are actuarially determined to be required to fund

benefits authorized by law.

Determined by Legislature,

but may not be less than six

percent of current

compensation, per the

Texas Constitution.

Determined by

Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature. No

Judicial Retirement System of

Texas Plan One


Subtitle B Chapters 831‐835 Determined by Legislature. Determined by Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature. No

Judicial Retirement System of

Texas Plan Two



Determined by

Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature. No

Law Enforcement & Custodial

Officer Supplemental

Retirement Fund



Determined by

Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature. No

Teacher Retirement System of

Texas


Subtitle C Chapters 821‐825

Determined by Legislature, with a constitutional

minimum of six percent and a maximum of 10 percent

of the aggregate compensation paid to members. In an

emergency, as determined by the Governor, the

Legislature may appropriate such additional sums as

are actuarially determined to be required to fund

benefits authorized by law.

Determined by Legislature,

but may not be less than six

percent of current

compensation, per the

Texas Constitution.

Determined by

Legislature.

Determined by

Legislature. No

Texas County & District

Retirement System


Subtitle F Chapters 841‐845

Determined annually by the actuary and approved by

the TCDRS board of trustees.

Determined by employer

(participating counties and

districts), within statutory

guidelines based on plan

options selected.

Determined by

employer

(participating

counties and

districts), within

statutory

guidelines.

Determined by

employer

(participating

counties and

districts), within

statutory

guidelines. No

Statewide (8)

37

APPENDIX B‐2


Retirement System Governing Statute Employer Contributions Employee Contributions Benefit Increases

Benefit

Reductions

Constitutional

Benefit

Protection

(Article 66)

Statewide (8)

Texas Emergency Services

Retirement System


Subtitle H Chapters 861‐865

TESRS board of trustees, by rule, determines minimum,

and may determine maximum, contribution rate per

member to be contributed by local governments of

participating departments (after consultation with the

actuary to make the system actuarially sound). State

contributes amount necessary for actuarial soundness,

not to exceed maximum set in governing statute. No employee contribution.

Determined by

board of trustees.

Determined by

board of trustees;

however, changes

to benefit formula

not allowed for

pension system

annuitants. No

Texas Municipal Retirement

System


Subtitle G Chapters 851‐855

Determined annually by the actuary and approved by

the TMRS board of trustees.

Determined by employer

(participating cities), within

statutory guidelines based

on plan options selected.

Determined by

employer

(participating

cities), within

statutory

guidelines.

Determined by

employer

(participating

cities), within

statutory

guidelines. No

38

APPENDIX B‐2


Retirement System

Governing

Statute Employer Contributions Employee Contributions Benefit Increases Benefit Reductions

Constitutional Benefit

Protection

(Article 66)

Austin Employees'

Retirement System

V.T.C.S., Article

6243n

Determined by governing

statute. City council may

authorize additional

contributions to the system.


statute. Active members may

increase their contributions

by a majority vote of all such

members.


statute; any modifications

require legislative action. COLAs

must be recommended by

actuary, city manager,

authorized by retirement board,

and approved by city council.

Retirement allowance and benefit

payable are subject to adjustments

to ensure actuarial soundness as

approved by the actuary and

adopted by board of trustees.

Annuities already accrued may not

be reduced. Yes

Austin Fire Fighters Relief

and Retirement Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243e.1






statute. Active members may

increase their contributions

by a majority vote of all such

members.


statute, but the board of trustees

with approval of the board's

actuary may change the service

retirement benefit multiplier for

certain member groups.

Determined by governing statute,

but the board of trustees with

approval of the board's actuary

may change service retirement

benefit multiplier for certain

member groups. Board also

allowed to make DROP‐related

changes and prorated reduction in

benefit payments if funds become

insufficient.

Yes. Also, system's

governing statute does not

allow for a change in

service retirement benefit

multiplier if it reduces a

member's benefit accrued

before the date of the

change.

Austin Police Officers'

Retirement Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243n‐1






statute. Members by

majority vote may increase

or decrease contributions

with a minimum set in

statute.

Increase in retirement benefit

multiplier allowed by the

governing statute if approved by

the board's actuary and adopted

by the board of trustees as a

board rule for all present, retired

and new members.

Decrease in retirement benefit

multiplier allowed by the governing

statute if approved by the board's

actuary, adopted by the board of

trustees as a board rule, present

members' vested interest before

the effective date of the change is

not reduced, and annuity payments

are not reduced. The governing

statute also allows the board of

trustees to eliminate Retro DROP. Yes

Dallas Employees'

Retirement Fund

Dallas City Code,

Chapter 40A

Determined by City

Ordinance

Determined by City

Ordinance Determined by City Ordinance Determined by City Ordinance Yes

Dallas Police & Fire Pension

System‐ Combined Plan

V.T.C.S., Article

6243a‐1

Determined by the

legislature or by a majority

vote of city voters.

Determined by the



Members of the system may

amend the plan including benefit

provisions.



provisions. Amendments should

not deprive a member from

benefits that have become fully

vested or nonforfeitable. Yes

Municipal (16)

39

APPENDIX B‐2


Retirement System

Governing



Protection

(Article 66)

Municipal (16)

Dallas Police and Fire

Pension System‐

Supplemental

V.T.C.S., Article

6243a‐1

Determined by the



Determined by the





provisions.



provisions. Amendments should

not deprive a member from

benefits that have become fully

vested or nonforfeitable. Yes

El Paso City Employees'

Pension Fund

El Paso City

Code, Title II,

Chapter 2.64

Determined by City

Ordinance

Determined by City

Ordinance Determined by City Ordinance Determined by City Ordinance Yes

El Paso Firemen's Pension

Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243b

Determined by city voters;

however, governing statute

allows city council to

increase or decrease city

contribution rate dependent

on whether the current rate

is sufficient as determined

by the actuary.

Determined by the board of

trustees; however, governing

statute allows employee

contribution rate to change

if the city contribution rate is

changed by city council.

Board may modify prospectively

and retroactively, if approved by

an actuary; by a majority of

active members; and either by

the city council or by city voters

through charter referendum.

Retroactive change can only

increase benefits.

Board may modify benefits

prospectively. Retroactive change

can only increase benefits. Yes

El Paso Police Pension Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243b

Determined by city voters;

however, governing statute

allows city council to

increase or decrease city

contribution rate dependent

on whether the current rate

is sufficient as determined

by the actuary.

Determined by the board of

trustees; however, governing

statute allows employee

contribution rate to change if

the city contribution rate is

changed by city council.

Board of trustees may modify

benefits prospectively and

retroactively, if approved by an

actuary; by a majority of active

members; and either by the city

council or by city voters through

charter referendum. Retroactive

change can only increase

benefits.

Board may modify benefits

prospectively. Retroactive changes

can only increase benefits. Yes

Fort Worth Employees'

Retirement Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243i

Board of trustees or city

council is authorized to

decrease municipal

contribution rate based on a

special election and

procedures outlined in the

governing statute; however,

only the city council may

increase the contributions.

Determined by the board or

city council based on a

special election and

procedures outlined in the

governing statute.

Board of trustees may propose

benefit increases that must be

approved by city council.

City council is authorized to make

benefit reductions with 90 days

notice to the board. Yes

40

APPENDIX B‐2


Retirement System

Governing



Protection

(Article 66)

Municipal (16)

Galveston Employees

Pension Plan for Police

V.T.C.S., Article

6243p

Determined by municipality

based on the advice of the

fund's actuary in accordance

with the governing statute.

Determined by board of

trustees in accordance with

the governing statute.

Board is authorized to make

benefit increases, with approval

of a majority of the members of

the fund.

Board of trustees is authorized to

make benefit modifications. No

Galveston Employees'

Retirement Fund

Galveston City

Code, Part II,

Chapter 28

Determined by the city

council.

Determined by the city

council.

Board of trustees is authorized

to make amendments to the

plan.

Board of trustees is authorized to

make amendments to the plan. No

Houston Firefighter's Relief

& Retirement Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243e.2(1)


statute. Modifications

require legislative action.





statute. Modifications require

legislative action.

Determined by governing statute.

Modifications require legislative

action. No

Houston Municipal

Employees Pension System

V.T.C.S., Article

6243h

Determined by written

agreements between the

city of Houston and the

pension system (meet &

confer).


agreements between the city

of Houston and the pension

system (meet & confer).


agreements between the city of

Houston and the pension system

(meet & confer).

Determined by written agreements

between the city of Houston and

the pension system (meet &

confer).

No. However, parties in

the agreement have

agreed not to file and to

oppose any legislation that

is filed in the Texas

Legislature that would

result in the reduction of

benefits.

Houston Police Officers

Pension System

V.T.C.S., Article

6243g‐4


agreements between the

city of Houston and the

pension system (meet &

confer).


agreements between the city

of Houston and the pension

system (meet & confer).


agreements between the city of

Houston and the pension system

(meet & confer).

Determined by written agreements

between the city of Houston and

the pension system (meet &

confer).

No. However, 2011

agreement states that

members cannot be

deprived of a right to

receive benefits that have

become fully vested.

San Antonio Fire & Police

Pension Fund

V.T.C.S., Article

6243o








statute. Modifications require

legislative action.

Determined by governing statute.

Modifications require legislative

action.

No. However, the

governing statute states

that municipal

contribution and

retirement annuities are a

part of the compensation

for services rendered to

the municipality and

makes the statute a

contract of employment.

41

APPENDIX B‐2


Governing Statute Employer Contributions Employee Contributions Benefit Increases Benefit Reductions

V.T.C.S., Article 6243e

Minimum employer

contribution rate is

determined by TLFFRA

statute, but governing body

of a municipality by

ordinance can adopt a

contribution rate higher than

statutory rate.

TLFFRA statute authorizes

the members of each fund to

determine their contribution

rates by voting.

TLFFRA statute allows the board

of trustees to make prospective

benefit modifications.

TLFFRA statute allows the board of

trustees to make prospective

benefit modifications; however,

changes cannot deprive a member,

retiree, or an eligible survivor of a

right to receive vested accrued

benefits.

Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement FundGreenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

LIST OF PAID AND PART‐PAID TLFFRA SYSTEMS

Texas Local Fire Fighter's Retirement Act (TLFFRA) (41)

Atlanta Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Beaumont Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Big Spring Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

Cleburne Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Abilene Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Amarillo Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Orange Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Paris Firefighters' Relief & Retirement Fund

Harlingen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Killeen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Laredo Firefighters Retirement System

Longview Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund

Lubbock Fire Pension Fund

Lufkin Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Marshall Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

McAllen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters' Retirement System

Corsicana Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Denison Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Constitutional Benefit Protection

(Article 66)

Yes, except for cities that have opted out.

Also, under the TLFFRA statute, board of

trustees is authorized to reduce benefit

payments proportionately if money

available to pay benefits is insufficient to

pay the full amount. The board may only

reduce benefit payments for the time

necessary.

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Travis Cty ESD #6 Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Tyler Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

University Park Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Waxahachie Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Weslaco Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Port Arthur Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund

San Benito Firemen's Pension Fund

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Temple Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Texarkana Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

Texas City Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund

42

APPENDIX B‐2


Governing Statute Employer Contributions Employee Contributions Benefit Increases Benefit Reductions


Protection (Article 66)

Texas Government Code,

Chapter 810 Determined by the political entity. Determined by the political entity. Determined by the political entity.

Determined by the political

entity.

Yes, unless political entity has

opted out.

Port of Houston Authority Retirement Plan

LIST OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ENABLED BY CHAPTER 810

Houston MTA Non‐Union Pension Plan

Houston MTA Workers Union Pension Plan

Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan

Colorado River Municipal Water Dist. Pension Trust

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority

Cypress‐Fairbanks ISD Pension Plan

Refugio Co. Memorial Hosp. Dist. Retirement Plan (5)

San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Retirement Plan

University Health System Pension Plan

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Board Retirement Plan

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board DPS Retirement Plan

DART Employees' Defined Benefit Retirement Plan & Trust

Harris County Hospital District Pension PlanCity Public Service of San Antonio Pension Plan

Nacogdoches County Hosp. District Retirement Plan

Lower Colorado River Authority Retirement PlanDallas Co. Hospital Dist. Retirement Income Plan

Chapter 810 (28)

Arlington Employees Deferred Income Plan

Brazos River Authority Retirement Plan

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Admin Employees

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Bargaining Units

Northeast Medical Center Hospital Retirement Plan

Northwest Texas Healthcare System Retirement Plan

Physicians Referral Service Retirement Benefit Plan

Plano Retirement Security Plan

Galveston Wharves Pension Plan

Guadalupe‐Blanco River Authority

43

APPENDIX C‐1 Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) Summary Overview1

The Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) was established in 1967 and provides retirement, disability and survivor benefits to 656 Texas counties and districts, including water, hospital, appraisal and emergency service districts, covering approximately 250,000 participants in the state. Although created by the Texas Legislature, TCDRS does not receive funding from the State of Texas. Each plan in TCDRS is funded independently by the county or district, its employees and investment earnings. All plan assets of TCDRS are pooled for investment purposes, but each plan sponsor’s assets may be used only for the payment of benefits to the members of that sponsor’s plan. Participating counties and districts (plan sponsors) are required to pay 100% of their required contribution every year. Plan sponsors select their benefits within the general framework of the TCDRS Act and have the ability to adjust benefits and costs annually based on their local needs and budgets. Plan design: TCDRS is a cash‐balance or savings‐based plan. Members save for their retirement over the length of their careers. A percentage of each employee’s paycheck is deposited into his or her TCDRS account. That percentage is set by the plan sponsor and can range from 4% to 7%. The account earns 7% interest annually and that rate can only be changed by the Texas Legislature. At retirement, the benefit is based on the final employee savings balance and plan sponsor matching. Plan sponsors matching options range from 100% to 250%. Retirement eligibility provisions vary by employer; e.g., Age 60 with 5, 8 or 10 years of service; Rule of 75 or 80; or 20 or 30 years of service at any age. Plan sponsors may also grant members monetary credit for prior service for the time employees worked for the county or district prior to participation in TCDRS. Plan sponsors may also adopt ad‐hoc COLAs for retirees to offset the effects of inflation. The ad‐hoc COLA may either be a flat‐rate COLA or a CPI‐COLA, which is related to the increase in the CPI‐U index. Retirement benefits are paid in the form of a lifetime monthly benefit for the member. Retirees may choose from several payout options including some that provide income to surviving beneficiaries. Plan sponsors may also authorize partial lump sum payments at retirement with a reduced monthly benefit. Funding policy: TCDRS does not receive funds from the State, and administrative costs are paid from the investment earnings of the fund. Benefits are funded by employees, plan sponsors and investment earnings. Investment earnings are allocated to plan sponsor accounts annually by TCDRS after member accounts and retirement reserves are credited statutory interest. Employer contributions are determined annually using the entry‐age cost method. Plan sponsors must pay 100% of their required contributions. TCDRS requires full funding of each plan’s normal cost and amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability over a 20‐year closed period. Any benefit changes are amortized over a 15‐year period. Flexibility for plan sponsors in benefits & contributions: Each plan sponsor in TCDRS maintains its own customized plan benefits. The governing body of each plan sponsor has the option to adopt or change plan benefit provisions based on their needs and budget through local action. Contribution rates for each plan within TCDRS will vary depending upon, among other things, the benefit options selected by a plan sponsor. A plan sponsor can increase or lower the required contribution rate by making changes to the plan benefit options. Plan benefit options include changes in the member contribution rates and/or the plan sponsor matching, prior service credits and ad‐hoc COLAs. Key actuarial assumptions & methods:

Investment return: 8.00%

Discount rate (used to discount liabilities for the following funds)

o Subdivision Accumulation Fund 9.00%

o Employee Savings Fund 7.00%

o Current Service Annuity Reserve Fund 7.00%

Payroll growth (used for amortization): Varies by plan from 0.00% to 3.50%

Actuarial Value of Assets: Five‐year smoothing

Actuarial Cost Method: Entry Age Normal

1 Information is based on the 12/31/2013 actuarial valuation unless otherwise noted.

44

APPENDIX C‐2

General Information on Each County and District Plan in TCDRS

Employee Employer Total

Anderson County 180% 7% 11.54% 18.54% 78.70% 15.2 Yes

Andrews County 200% 7% 15.94% 22.94% 80.70% 15.8 Yes

Angelina County 180% 7% 9.99% 16.99% 86.80% 15.2 Yes

Aransas County 190% 7% 8.50% 15.50% 89.80% 15.4 Yes

Archer County 125% 7% 7.82% 14.82% 87.90% 14.8 Yes

Armstrong County 150% 7% 5.25% 12.25% 104.80% 0 Yes

Atascosa County 200% 6% 7.23% 13.23% 91.30% 11.3 Yes

Austin County 150% 7% 8.18% 15.18% 90.40% 15 Yes

Bailey County 100% 7% 5.81% 12.81% 88.50% 14.7 Yes

Bandera County 200% 7% 9.40% 16.40% 88.80% 15.2 Yes

Bastrop County 200% 7% 9.92% 16.92% 87.90% 15.8 Yes

Baylor County 150% 7% 9.18% 16.18% 90.70% 15.1 Yes

Bee County 175% 7% 6.89% 13.89% 95.30% 14.5 Yes

Bell County 225% 7% 12.69% 19.69% 83.00% 15.6 Yes

Bexar County 200% 7% 13.18% 20.18% 82.60% 15.4 Yes

Blanco County 150% 7% 8.53% 15.53% 85.90% 15.5 Yes

Borden County 175% 7% 16.00% 23.00% 78.30% 13.4 Yes

Bosque County 200% 5% 4.70% 9.70% 102.10% 0 Yes

Bowie County 200% 7% 10.82% 17.82% 85.70% 16.4 Yes

Brazoria County 200% 7% 12.32% 19.32% 83.60% 15.4 No

Brazos County 225% 7% 13.39% 20.39% 82.60% 13.4 Yes

Brewster County 185% 7% 10.76% 17.76% 83.30% 14.3 Yes

Briscoe County 150% 7% 6.51% 13.51% 99.30% 4.4 Yes

Brooks County 250% 7% 7.08% 14.08% 106.20% 0 Yes

Brown County 200% 5% 7.28% 12.28% 88.20% 15.4 Yes

Burleson County 125% 7% 8.36% 15.36% 82.80% 15.4 Yes

Burnet County 200% 7% 12.25% 19.25% 80.20% 15.4 Yes

Caldwell County 150% 5% 3.92% 8.92% 98.50% 9.5 Yes

Calhoun County 200% 7% 11.04% 18.04% 88.90% 14.9 Yes

Callahan County 110% 6% 6.81% 12.81% 88.20% 15.6 Yes

Cameron County 200% 7% 9.27% 16.27% 90.50% 15.3 Yes

Camp County 175% 7% 12.05% 19.05% 81.10% 15.1 Yes

Carson County 200% 7% 11.68% 18.68% 88.40% 9.5 Yes

Cass County 150% 7% 11.02% 18.02% 81.80% 15.4 Yes

Castro County 200% 7% 11.02% 18.02% 88.90% 15.3 Yes

Chambers County 220% 7% 14.22% 21.22% 82.80% 14.6 Yes

Cherokee County 150% 7% 9.75% 16.75% 79.60% 15.7 Yes

Childress County 100% 5% 3.96% 8.96% 88.80% 7.8 Yes

Clay County 140% 7% 10.43% 17.43% 82.60% 13.1 Yes

Cochran County 175% 7% 9.83% 16.83% 89.20% 5.4 Yes

Coke County 155% 7% 14.02% 21.02% 79.60% 14.2 Yes

Coleman County 125% 7% 7.20% 14.20% 91.50% 16.5 Yes

Collin County 200% 7% 6.21% 13.21% 104.50% 0 Yes

Collingsworth County 200% 7% 11.59% 18.59% 84.40% 14.7 Yes

Colorado County 185% 7% 12.04% 19.04% 82.60% 12.9 Yes

Comal County 200% 7% 10.74% 17.74% 84.40% 15.1 Yes

Comanche County 200% 5% 9.12% 14.12% 82.00% 15.3 Yes

Concho County 200% 7% 7.32% 14.32% 98.30% 10.2 Yes

Cooke County 205% 7% 8.88% 15.88% 90.20% 13.3 Yes

Name Funded

Ratio

2015 Contribution RateBenefits/

Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

45

APPENDIX C‐2


Employee Employer TotalName

Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Coryell County 185% 7% 10.10% 17.10% 88.30% 15 Yes

Cottle County 100% 7% 4.15% 11.15% 99.40% 0 Yes

Crane County 200% 7% 16.71% 23.71% 84.00% 10.7 Yes

Crockett County 145% 7% 10.20% 17.20% 81.20% 15.6 Yes

Crosby County 100% 7% 11.47% 18.47% 75.60% 15.5 Yes

Culberson County 160% 7% 6.82% 13.82% 96.10% 11.6 Yes

Dallam County 250% 7% 17.11% 24.11% 78.30% 12.7 Yes

Dallas County 200% 7% 11.50% 18.50% 85.80% 15.8 Yes

Dawson County 150% 7% 12.51% 19.51% 78.90% 15.1 Yes

Deaf Smith County 175% 7% 11.52% 18.52% 84.40% 14.7 Yes

Delta County 125% 7% 6.49% 13.49% 88.30% 14.6 Yes

Denton County 220% 7% 11.98% 18.98% 84.40% 15.4 Yes

DeWitt County 125% 7% 6.52% 13.52% 90.60% 7.7 Yes

Dickens County 150% 7% 11.06% 18.06% 79.20% 15.9 Yes

Dimmit County 200% 7% 7.09% 14.09% 94.80% 0.2 Yes

Donley County 100% 7% 6.45% 13.45% 88.60% 15.4 Yes

Duval County 100% 5% 5.71% 10.71% 82.10% 6.1 Yes

Eastland County 200% 7% 11.61% 18.61% 80.80% 15.4 Yes

Ector County 250% 7% 15.83% 22.83% 84.50% 16.2 Yes

Edwards County 200% 7% 9.55% 16.55% 91.00% 14 Yes

Ellis County 200% 7% 10.41% 17.41% 84.80% 15.8 Yes

El Paso County 250% 7% 15.25% 22.25% 82.20% 15.2 Yes

Erath County 200% 7% 11.18% 18.18% 85.40% 15.4 Yes

Falls County 175% 7% 11.16% 18.16% 81.20% 15.6 Yes

Fannin County 200% 7% 10.61% 17.61% 88.50% 15.8 Yes

Fayette County 150% 7% 10.56% 17.56% 86.00% 15.2 Yes

Fisher County 125% 7% 8.06% 15.06% 83.80% 14.9 Yes

Floyd County 200% 7% 14.40% 21.40% 71.80% 15.3 Yes

Fort Bend County 200% 7% 12.14% 19.14% 83.90% 15.5 Yes

Franklin County 200% 7% 10.78% 17.78% 88.10% 9.7 Yes

Freestone County 150% 7% 15.39% 22.39% 75.40% 14.6 Yes

Frio County 200% 7% 8.48% 15.48% 94.10% 15 Yes

Gaines County 160% 7% 11.36% 18.36% 80.70% 15.2 Yes

Galveston County 200% 7% 11.25% 18.25% 86.90% 15.9 No

Garza County 160% 7% 8.03% 15.03% 89.00% 15.3 Yes

Gillespie County 175% 7% 10.14% 17.14% 88.60% 4.5 Yes

Glasscock County 250% 7% 8.68% 15.68% 100.80% 0 Yes

Goliad County 150% 7% 7.28% 14.28% 92.00% 15.6 Yes

Gonzales County 200% 7% 12.99% 19.99% 74.00% 13.3 Yes

Gray County 160% 7% 8.75% 15.75% 87.90% 15.4 Yes

Grayson County 225% 4% 9.45% 13.45% 82.60% 14.7 Yes

Gregg County 200% 7% 10.65% 17.65% 87.60% 15.5 Yes

Grimes County 190% 7% 8.27% 15.27% 93.20% 18.1 Yes

Guadalupe County 200% 7% 10.55% 17.55% 83.90% 15.3 Yes

Hale County 200% 7% 15.52% 22.52% 75.20% 15.2 Yes

Hall County 150% 7% 9.91% 16.91% 77.60% 16.5 Yes

Hamilton County 150% 6% 7.01% 13.01% 85.50% 15.2 Yes

Hansford County 170% 7% 11.89% 18.89% 85.60% 15 Yes

Hardeman County 140% 7% 5.70% 12.70% 97.60% 2.9 Yes

46

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Hardin County 200% 7% 13.70% 20.70% 78.70% 15.2 Yes

Harris County 225% 6% 12.34% 18.34% 85.90% 16.2 Yes

Harrison County 180% 7% 12.06% 19.06% 81.90% 15.4 Yes

Hartley County 200% 7% 12.51% 19.51% 86.90% 13.7 Yes

Haskell County 125% 7% 10.45% 17.45% 74.80% 9.2 Yes

Hays County 225% 7% 12.00% 19.00% 84.60% 15.4 Yes

Hemphill County 175% 7% 6.36% 13.36% 100.10% 0 Yes

Henderson County 225% 7% 13.68% 20.68% 82.10% 15.6 Yes

Hidalgo County 200% 7% 10.63% 17.63% 84.80% 15.2 Yes

Hill County 150% 6% 7.84% 13.84% 83.20% 14.8 Yes

Hockley County 180% 7% 13.42% 20.42% 78.30% 14.9 Yes

Hood County 185% 6% 6.58% 12.58% 97.30% 8.4 Yes

Hopkins County 225% 7% 13.57% 20.57% 82.50% 15.1 Yes

Houston County 140% 7% 6.68% 13.68% 90.80% 15.8 Yes

Howard County 200% 7% 16.23% 23.23% 75.80% 14.6 Yes

Hudspeth County 175% 5% 3.46% 8.46% 105.50% 0 Yes

Hunt County 200% 7% 10.11% 17.11% 86.70% 15 Yes

Hutchinson County 190% 7% 11.35% 18.35% 89.40% 15.6 Yes

Irion County 200% 7% 9.96% 16.96% 90.80% 4.6 Yes

Jack County 160% 7% 11.60% 18.60% 82.80% 15.1 Yes

Jackson County 150% 7% 9.93% 16.93% 86.50% 15.7 Yes

Jasper County 225% 7% 17.88% 24.88% 67.70% 15.7 Yes

Jeff Davis County 150% 7% 5.02% 12.02% 106.80% 0 Yes

Jefferson County 200% 7% 17.66% 24.66% 74.90% 15.3 Yes

Jim Hogg County 125% 5% 2.97% 7.97% 102.00% 0 Yes

Jim Wells County 250% 6% 10.84% 16.84% 88.40% 14.8 Yes

Johnson County 200% 7% 10.32% 17.32% 87.00% 15.9 Yes

Jones County 225% 7% 16.26% 23.26% 72.80% 15.6 Yes

Karnes County 200% 7% 11.88% 18.88% 78.00% 14.9 Yes

Kaufman County 200% 7% 9.40% 16.40% 86.90% 15.3 Yes

Kendall County 150% 7% 7.49% 14.49% 88.70% 15.4 Yes

Kenedy County 250% 7% 17.66% 24.66% 77.90% 15.2 Yes

Kent County 200% 7% 14.90% 21.90% 77.70% 14.6 Yes

Kerr County 230% 7% 12.20% 19.20% 84.00% 15.7 Yes

Kimble County 175% 7% 6.41% 13.41% 104.70% 0 Yes

King County 225% 7% 10.48% 17.48% 95.70% 13.1 Yes

Kinney County 200% 7% 7.57% 14.57% 96.30% 15.6 Yes

Kleberg County 100% 7% 7.46% 14.46% 87.90% 15.8 Yes

Knox County 150% 7% 6.46% 13.46% 97.00% 18.2 Yes

Lamar County 220% 7% 12.37% 19.37% 84.10% 15.9 Yes

Lamb County 200% 7% 12.47% 19.47% 82.30% 15.3 Yes

Lampasas County 225% 7% 14.81% 21.81% 80.00% 11.6 Yes

La Salle County 250% 7% 10.24% 17.24% 89.30% 13.6 Yes

Lavaca County 200% 7% 15.92% 22.92% 77.20% 15.3 Yes

Lee County 170% 5% 8.26% 13.26% 84.40% 15.6 Yes

Leon County 110% 7% 1.99% 8.99% 118.90% 0 Yes

Liberty County 250% 7% 16.78% 23.78% 75.20% 15.4 Yes

Limestone County 150% 7% 5.85% 12.85% 97.70% 2.6 Yes

Lipscomb County 175% 7% 12.06% 19.06% 83.10% 12.4 Yes

47

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Live Oak County 250% 7% 14.25% 21.25% 82.20% 12.7 Yes

Llano County 160% 7% 9.10% 16.10% 86.00% 15.6 Yes

Loving County 250% 7% 9.43% 16.43% 103.70% 0 Yes

Lubbock County 200% 7% 10.35% 17.35% 84.10% 15.6 Yes

Lynn County 125% 5% 1.94% 6.94% 112.80% 0 Yes

McCulloch County 160% 7% 5.66% 12.66% 101.30% 0 Yes

McLennan County 250% 5% 14.28% 19.28% 78.60% 15.2 Yes

McMullen County 110% 7% 7.48% 14.48% 81.10% 5.5 Yes

Madison County 155% 7% 8.74% 15.74% 77.30% 14.1 Yes

Marion County 200% 7% 10.58% 17.58% 90.30% 16.4 Yes

Martin County 200% 7% 12.79% 19.79% 78.70% 14.6 Yes

Mason County 150% 7% 9.33% 16.33% 85.90% 12.5 Yes

Matagorda County 200% 7% 14.77% 21.77% 78.60% 15.5 No

Maverick County 250% 6% 8.68% 14.68% 92.80% 10.9 Yes

Medina County 200% 6% 7.50% 13.50% 91.30% 10.3 Yes

Menard County 165% 7% 8.10% 15.10% 92.80% 8.4 Yes

Midland County 180% 7% 10.49% 17.49% 83.90% 8.4 Yes

Milam County 175% 7% 9.03% 16.03% 85.80% 10.1 Yes

Mills County 200% 7% 11.94% 18.94% 78.90% 14.6 Yes

Mitchell County 140% 7% 11.08% 18.08% 79.10% 10.9 Yes

Montague County 250% 7% 14.36% 21.36% 78.90% 15.2 Yes

Montgomery County 250% 6% 10.93% 16.93% 86.60% 9.4 Yes

Moore County 170% 7% 11.44% 18.44% 83.80% 14 Yes

Morris County 150% 7% 12.77% 19.77% 81.50% 15.6 Yes

Nacogdoches County 200% 7% 10.28% 17.28% 86.60% 15.6 Yes

Navarro County 175% 7% 10.68% 17.68% 85.60% 15.7 Yes

Newton County 170% 7% 8.00% 15.00% 91.50% 14.7 Yes

Nolan County 170% 7% 10.93% 17.93% 78.90% 15.8 Yes

Nueces County 200% 7% 12.28% 19.28% 85.60% 15.8 Yes

Ochiltree County 175% 7% 12.11% 19.11% 82.40% 14.7 Yes

Oldham County 200% 7% 14.37% 21.37% 81.90% 15.7 Yes

Orange County 200% 7% 14.26% 21.26% 81.00% 15.4 Yes

Palo Pinto County 200% 7% 11.99% 18.99% 81.10% 15 Yes

Panola County 250% 7% 11.11% 18.11% 96.20% 0.3 Yes

Parker County 200% 7% 11.00% 18.00% 84.30% 16.2 Yes

Parmer County 150% 7% 8.66% 15.66% 85.20% 15.4 Yes

Pecos County 180% 7% 9.40% 16.40% 83.90% 15.1 Yes

Polk County 250% 7% 12.12% 19.12% 89.50% 15.3 Yes

Potter County 210% 7% 13.74% 20.74% 81.80% 14.9 Yes

Presidio County 200% 6% 6.39% 12.39% 101.80% 0 Yes

Rains County 190% 7% 7.95% 14.95% 95.70% 15.2 Yes

Randall County 200% 7% 9.88% 16.88% 88.00% 15.6 Yes

Reagan County 225% 7% 13.89% 20.89% 80.20% 14.5 Yes

Real County 250% 7% 14.77% 21.77% 86.30% 15.9 Yes

Red River County 200% 7% 8.91% 15.91% 92.20% 15.4 Yes

Reeves County 200% 7% 5.25% 12.25% 107.70% 0 Yes

Refugio County 125% 7% 6.61% 13.61% 90.20% 15.3 Yes

Roberts County 140% 7% 7.37% 14.37% 92.70% 15.7 Yes

Robertson County 150% 7% 7.83% 14.83% 88.60% 16.2 Yes

48

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Rockwall County 200% 7% 6.69% 13.69% 99.00% 0.1 Yes

Runnels County 130% 7% 8.99% 15.99% 86.50% 14 Yes

Rusk County 150% 7% 9.30% 16.30% 85.60% 14.7 Yes

Sabine County 165% 7% 5.58% 12.58% 102.70% 0 Yes

San Augustine County 225% 5% 6.06% 11.06% 95.40% 18.3 Yes

San Jacinto County 180% 7% 9.28% 16.28% 86.70% 13.7 Yes

San Patricio County 200% 7% 10.66% 17.66% 86.60% 15.6 Yes

San Saba County 175% 7% 8.61% 15.61% 91.50% 15.3 Yes

Schleicher County 100% 7% 8.04% 15.04% 88.00% 16.8 Yes

Scurry County 175% 7% 9.06% 16.06% 92.80% 17.4 Yes

Shackelford County 250% 7% 16.08% 23.08% 84.70% 14.4 Yes

Shelby County 170% 7% 8.58% 15.58% 86.90% 15.3 Yes

Sherman County 225% 7% 13.86% 20.86% 83.70% 4 Yes

Smith County 125% 7% 8.20% 15.20% 83.30% 17.1 Yes

Somervell County 235% 7% 14.49% 21.49% 83.80% 15 Yes

Starr County 200% 5% 7.75% 12.75% 83.40% 14.1 Yes

Stephens County 180% 7% 8.45% 15.45% 93.50% 3.5 Yes

Sterling County 250% 7% 7.58% 14.58% 108.80% 0 Yes

Stonewall County 150% 7% 9.80% 16.80% 84.10% 16.3 Yes

Sutton County 150% 7% 6.52% 13.52% 97.90% 8.4 Yes

Swisher County 175% 7% 11.41% 18.41% 81.40% 15.8 Yes

Tarrant County 200% 7% 14.50% 21.50% 81.50% 15.1 Yes

Taylor County 125% 7% 10.15% 17.15% 80.00% 15.5 Yes

Terrell County 250% 7% 12.85% 19.85% 91.20% 7.5 Yes

Terry County 175% 7% 11.26% 18.26% 79.90% 7.4 Yes

Throckmorton County 125% 7% 10.98% 17.98% 82.40% 13.7 Yes

Titus County 250% 7% 11.18% 18.18% 90.10% 16.4 Yes

Tom Green County 150% 7% 8.40% 15.40% 87.10% 15.3 Yes

Travis County 225% 7% 13.56% 20.56% 84.10% 15.5 Yes

Trinity County 150% 7% 9.99% 16.99% 83.00% 14.8 Yes

Tyler County 190% 7% 10.79% 17.79% 85.60% 16.1 Yes

Upshur County 100% 7% 6.81% 13.81% 90.90% 14.3 Yes

Upton County 125% 7% 5.19% 12.19% 97.50% 0.4 Yes

Uvalde County 200% 7% 9.86% 16.86% 86.70% 16.2 Yes

Val Verde County 225% 7% 11.52% 18.52% 86.90% 15.5 Yes

Van Zandt County 175% 7% 8.16% 15.16% 90.70% 14.7 Yes

Victoria County 200% 7% 13.63% 20.63% 80.60% 15.6 Yes

Walker County 210% 7% 12.35% 19.35% 81.40% 15.2 Yes

Waller County 160% 7% 8.61% 15.61% 87.70% 16 Yes

Ward County 250% 7% 13.48% 20.48% 86.20% 14.2 Yes

Washington County 210% 7% 11.99% 18.99% 82.90% 15.2 Yes

Webb County 250% 6% 10.50% 16.50% 87.70% 15.3 Yes

Wharton County 175% 7% 12.91% 19.91% 82.50% 15.3 Yes

Wheeler County 200% 7% 9.28% 16.28% 93.40% 4.5 Yes

Wichita County 200% 7% 12.78% 19.78% 78.00% 15.5 Yes

Wilbarger County 175% 7% 12.07% 19.07% 81.70% 15.5 Yes

Willacy County 200% 7% 7.90% 14.90% 96.60% 8.5 Yes

Williamson County 250% 7% 12.52% 19.52% 86.30% 15.4 Yes

Wilson County 160% 7% 8.50% 15.50% 87.80% 12.1 Yes

49

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Winkler County 225% 7% 10.53% 17.53% 91.30% 8.5 Yes

Wise County 225% 7% 10.57% 17.57% 86.00% 15.8 Yes

Wood County 190% 7% 10.71% 17.71% 85.40% 7.6 Yes

Yoakum County 150% 7% 9.27% 16.27% 82.30% 7.3 Yes

Young County 150% 7% 9.34% 16.34% 87.60% 15.1 Yes

Zapata County 225% 7% 9.23% 16.23% 95.60% 15.7 Yes

Zavala County 250% 7% 9.41% 16.41% 96.40% 17.5 Yes

Acton MUD 200% 5% 7.13% 12.13% 90.90% 14.7 Yes

Agua SUD 200% 4% 4.73% 8.73% 89.60% 14.1 Yes

Alamo Area COG 200% 6% 7.36% 13.36% 91.10% 8.1 Yes

Anderson Co. CAD 150% 6% 6.07% 12.07% 92.80% 13 Yes

Andrews Co. AD 200% 7% 10.92% 17.92% 37.50% 20 No

Angelina Co. AD 200% 7% 11.72% 18.72% 89.20% 17.2 No

Angelina‐Nacogdoches Co. WCID #1 150% 6% 7.76% 13.76% 93.40% 14.7 Yes

Angleton DD 125% 7% 8.92% 15.92% 91.90% 15.4 Yes

Aquilla WSD — Hill Co. 150% 6% 10.06% 16.06% 77.80% 14.2 Yes

Aransas Co. AD 250% 7% 19.88% 26.88% 79.00% 16.4 No

Aransas Co. ND 200% 7% 10.93% 17.93% 95.10% 15 Yes

Archer Co. AD 175% 7% 7.45% 14.45% 98.10% 20 No

Atascosa Co. AD 200% 7% 11.13% 18.13% 91.10% 15.8 No

Austin Co. AD 225% 7% 8.25% 15.25% 101.30% 0 Yes

Bacliff MUD 150% 6% 6.55% 12.55% 92.90% 15.1 Yes

Bastrop Co. ESD #1 125% 6% 4.98% 10.98% 111.80% 0 Yes

Baylor Co. AD 100% 7% 6.23% 13.23% 95.70% 13.6 Yes

Bayview ID #11 100% 7% 4.26% 11.26% 99.10% 3 Yes

Bayview MUD 100% 4% 1.33% 5.33% 149.10% 0 Yes

Bell Co. AD 150% 7% 10.62% 17.62% 85.70% 15.8 Yes

Bell Co. WCID #1 100% 7% 4.63% 11.63% 91.80% 1.4 Yes

Benbrook Water Auth. 150% 7% 7.93% 14.93% 87.20% 15.3 Yes

Bexar AD 250% 7% 11.61% 18.61% 94.90% 4.4 No

Bexar Co. ESD # 2 100% 4% 2.27% 6.27% 80.40% 20 Yes

Bexar Co. ESD #7 200% 5% 5.62% 10.62% 82.90% 18.6 Yes

Bexar Co. WCID #10 100% 7% 7.69% 14.69% 81.70% 15.7 Yes

Bexar Metro 911 Network Dist. 200% 7% 2.45% 9.45% 113.90% 0 Yes

Bexar‐Medina‐Atascosa WCID #1 200% 7% 8.23% 15.23% 98.00% 2.1 Yes

Bistone MWSD — Limestone Co. 200% 7% 13.85% 20.85% 84.90% 16.6 Yes

Borden Co. AD 100% 7% 3.78% 10.78% 140.60% 0 Yes

Bosque Co. CAD 200% 7% 11.02% 18.02% 93.70% 15.6 No

Brazoria Co. AD 200% 7% 11.12% 18.12% 88.60% 14.5 No

Brazoria Co. CRD #3 250% 7% 17.54% 24.54% 80.20% 15.4 Yes

Brazoria Co. DD #4 250% 7% 8.89% 15.89% 102.20% 0 Yes

Brazoria Co. DD #5 100% 7% 4.31% 11.31% 99.50% 1.6 Yes

Brazos CAD 250% 7% 13.14% 20.14% 87.50% 15.4 No

Brazos Co. ECD 200% 7% 7.59% 14.59% 97.10% 12.8 Yes

Brazos Regional Public Utility Agency 200% 6% 7.99% 13.99% 64.90% 19 Yes

Brazos River Auth. 200% 6% 7.33% 13.33% 93.10% 12.4 Yes

Brazos Valley COG 200% 5% 6.40% 11.40% 80.50% 16.7 No

Brazos Valley GCD 235% 7% 13.70% 20.70% 77.20% 19.7 Yes

Brewster Co. AD 185% 7% 7.88% 14.88% 95.30% 0.5 Yes

50

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Bright Star‐Salem SUD 100% 6% 3.41% 9.41% 112.30% 0 Yes

Brookesmith SUD 100% 4% 2.79% 6.79% 20.30% 19.9 Yes

Brookshire MWD 150% 7% 3.75% 10.75% 106.70% 0 Yes

Brookshire‐Katy DD 160% 4% 4.60% 8.60% 94.60% 19.4 Yes

Brownsville ID 100% 7% 5.65% 12.65% 87.00% 11.3 Yes

Brushy Creek MUD — Williamson Co. 200% 6% 6.08% 12.08% 106.30% 0 Yes

Burnet CAD 200% 7% 19.03% 26.03% 78.20% 15.3 Yes

CAD of Bandera Co. 175% 7% 8.66% 15.66% 90.60% 13.5 Yes

CAD of Johnson Co. 200% 7% 10.03% 17.03% 91.70% 4 No

CAD of Taylor Co. 125% 7% 8.34% 15.34% 91.20% 11.7 No

Caldwell Co. AD 175% 7% 8.99% 15.99% 82.30% 14.3 Yes

Calhoun Co. AD 200% 7% 9.10% 16.10% 90.80% 14.6 No

Calhoun Co. E911 ECD 200% 7% 10.78% 17.78% 88.00% 16.7 Yes

Callahan Co. AD 100% 7% 6.20% 13.20% 93.10% 16.1 Yes

Cameron Co. AD 200% 7% 12.45% 19.45% 88.00% 7.4 No

Cameron Co. DD #1 100% 7% 4.74% 11.74% 98.70% 17.8 Yes

Cameron Co. DD #3 100% 7% 4.42% 11.42% 98.70% 9.2 Yes

Cameron Co. DD #5 150% 7% 8.93% 15.93% 94.20% 14.7 Yes

Cameron Co. ECD 200% 5% 9.07% 14.07% 69.20% 14.8 Yes

Cameron Co. ID #2 100% 7% 6.19% 13.19% 88.70% 15.9 Yes

Cameron Co. ID #6 100% 7% 5.08% 12.08% 93.10% 14.4 Yes

Camp CAD 100% 7% 3.70% 10.70% 104.80% 0 Yes

Cass Co. AD 150% 7% 9.59% 16.59% 85.50% 14.6 Yes

Central TX GCD 100% 5% 3.98% 8.98% 77.00% 19.6 Yes

Central TX Reg. Mob. Auth. 250% 7% 11.72% 18.72% 105.40% 0 Yes

Central WCID — Angelina Co. 100% 7% 8.34% 15.34% 86.00% 13.6 Yes

Chambers Co. AD 250% 7% 5.04% 12.04% 108.60% 0 No

Chambers Co. Public HD 200% 5% 5.03% 10.03% 101.20% 0 Yes

Childress Co. AD 100% 4% 7.44% 11.44% 77.50% 16.2 No

Childress Co. HD 125% 7% 4.61% 11.61% 99.10% 16.3 Yes

Clay Co. AD 200% 7% 19.72% 26.72% 62.50% 15.3 No

Coastal Bend GCD 120% 7% 3.76% 10.76% 116.40% 0 Yes

Coastal Plains GCD 100% 7% 5.36% 12.36% 98.80% 12.6 Yes

Cochran Co. AD 165% 7% 5.58% 12.58% 104.40% 0 Yes

Coke Co. AD 140% 7% 6.39% 13.39% 105.70% 0 No

Collin Co. CAD 250% 7% 10.35% 17.35% 98.10% 0.3 No

Comal AD 200% 7% 11.14% 18.14% 85.40% 2.7 Yes

Comal Co. ESD #3 175% 7% 8.29% 15.29% 72.60% 12.1 Yes

Comal Co. ESD #4 Spring Branch F&R 100% 7% 4.49% 11.49% 79.40% 18.3 No

Comal Co. ESD #5 200% 5% 5.63% 10.63% 88.50% 15.6 No

Combined Consumers SUD 100% 5% 2.74% 7.74% 99.60% 18.2 Yes

Concho Co. HD 125% 5% 4.48% 9.48% 90.50% 15.6 Yes

Concho Valley COG 250% 7% 11.86% 18.86% 85.00% 10.6 No

Cooke Co. AD 225% 7% 10.35% 17.35% 95.80% 16.2 No

Cow Creek GCD 150% 6% 5.87% 11.87% 99.80% 0 Yes

Crane Co. HD 200% 7% 9.19% 16.19% 85.10% 13.6 Yes

Crockett Co. WCID #1 125% 7% 5.28% 12.28% 98.20% 18.7 Yes

Crosby Co. AD 125% 7% 2.16% 9.16% 125.60% 0 No

Crosby MUD 150% 7% 2.94% 9.94% 112.10% 0 Yes

51

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Cross Roads SUD 100% 5% 3.81% 8.81% 102.50% 0 Yes

Dallam Co. AD 110% 7% 5.86% 12.86% 93.20% 7.1 No

Dallas CAD 250% 7% 18.87% 25.87% 83.80% 15.2 No

Dallas Co. Park Cities MUD 175% 7% 12.06% 19.06% 88.60% 15.5 Yes

Dawson Co. CAD 200% 7% 5.09% 12.09% 107.00% 0 Yes

Deaf Smith Co. HD 100% 4% 1.00% 5.00% 109.00% 0 Yes

Delta Co. AD 125% 7% 7.28% 14.28% 81.00% 19.3 Yes

Delta Co. MUD 100% 6% 3.59% 9.59% 111.40% 0 Yes

Delta Lake ID 100% 5% 3.14% 8.14% 97.90% 7.4 Yes

Denco Area 911 Dist. — Denton Co. 200% 7% 7.65% 14.65% 97.60% 0 No

Denton CAD 250% 7% 7.14% 14.14% 103.90% 0 Yes

Denton Co. Fresh WSD 1A 200% 7% 6.72% 13.72% 110.20% 0 No

Denton Co. Trans. Auth. 150% 5% 4.25% 9.25% 95.70% 17 Yes

DeWitt Co. AD 160% 7% 8.11% 15.11% 94.80% 14.8 No

Dickens Co. AD 150% 7% 7.39% 14.39% 114.30% 0 Yes

Duval Co. GCD 250% 4% 7.82% 11.82% 20.70% 19.6 Yes

East Fork SUD 200% 7% 8.74% 15.74% 65.70% 19.6 Yes

East Medina Co. SUD 100% 5% 3.54% 8.54% 77.80% 18.1 Yes

Eastland Co. AD 175% 7% 14.68% 21.68% 81.80% 15.5 No

ECD of Ector Co. 225% 7% 7.26% 14.26% 106.80% 0 Yes

Ector Co. HD 200% 5% 7.73% 12.73% 87.20% 15 No

Edwards Aquifer Auth. — Bexar Co. 180% 4% 5.80% 9.80% 89.60% 16.1 Yes

Edwards CAD 200% 7% 9.98% 16.98% 104.10% 0 Yes

El Paso CAD 200% 7% 10.02% 17.02% 64.90% 14.7 Yes

El Paso Co. 911 Dist. 200% 7% 12.62% 19.62% 87.20% 15.5 Yes

El Paso Co. HD 180% 5% 6.39% 11.39% 86.30% 15.5 Yes

Emerald Bay MUD 100% 4% 3.02% 7.02% 101.30% 0 Yes

Falls Co. AD 100% 7% 0.00% 7.00% 152.60% 0 Yes

Fannin Co. AD 200% 7% 9.08% 16.08% 91.00% 4.1 Yes

Fisher Co. HD 200% 4% 3.85% 7.85% 99.70% 20 Yes

Fort Bend CAD 225% 7% 11.78% 18.78% 90.00% 8.7 No

Fort Bend Co. WCID #2 100% 6% 3.57% 9.57% 93.10% 8 No

Four Way SUD 100% 5% 2.96% 7.96% 106.90% 0 Yes

Freestone Co. AD 250% 7% 12.00% 19.00% 88.90% 6.2 No

Frio Co. AD 200% 7% 13.43% 20.43% 87.00% 16.2 Yes

Gaines Co. AD 150% 7% 7.31% 14.31% 84.20% 8.6 Yes

Galveston CAD 250% 7% 18.36% 25.36% 86.30% 15.6 Yes

Galveston Co. Consolidated DD 200% 7% 12.24% 19.24% 88.30% 16.1 Yes

Galveston Co. DD #1 200% 7% 9.49% 16.49% 93.30% 18.8 Yes

Galveston Co. DD #2 250% 7% 9.85% 16.85% 99.10% 7.4 Yes

Galveston Co. ECD 250% 7% 13.69% 20.69% 90.90% 16.1 No

Galveston Co. Fresh WSD #6 100% 5% 6.56% 11.56% 46.70% 15.5 Yes

Galveston Co. Health Dist. 100% 7% 3.80% 10.80% 102.70% 0 Yes

Galveston Co. WCID #1 200% 7% 11.04% 18.04% 90.20% 8.4 No

Garza CAD 160% 7% 10.22% 17.22% 83.90% 16.8 No

Gonzales Co. AD 225% 7% 10.55% 17.55% 94.30% 6.9 No

Gray Co. AD 225% 7% 10.19% 17.19% 94.20% 19 No

Grayson CAD 225% 7% 13.51% 20.51% 87.00% 15.4 No

Greater Harris Co. 911 Emerg. Network 250% 7% 11.34% 18.34% 93.40% 13.9 Yes

52

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Greenbelt MIWA — Donley Co. 150% 7% 10.58% 17.58% 89.20% 14.8 No

Grimes Co. AD 200% 7% 11.26% 18.26% 93.70% 15.7 No

Guadalupe AD 200% 7% 12.07% 19.07% 87.20% 15.1 Yes

Gulf Coast WA — Galveston Co. 150% 7% 7.67% 14.67% 96.10% 7.8 Yes

Hall Co. AD 100% 5% 3.36% 8.36% 100.60% 0 Yes

Hansford Co. HD 175% 4% 4.06% 8.06% 93.80% 15.5 Yes

Hardin Co. AD 225% 7% 13.95% 20.95% 87.50% 10.9 Yes

Harlingen ID Cameron Co. #1 125% 5% 4.11% 9.11% 96.40% 4.7 Yes

Harris Co. AD 235% 7% 13.37% 20.37% 88.80% 13.6 No

Harris Co. ESD #50 200% 7% 7.96% 14.96% 90.20% 1.8 Yes

Harris Co. Housing Auth. 225% 7% 7.33% 14.33% 118.80% 0 Yes

Harris Co. WCID #1 200% 7% 10.98% 17.98% 91.40% 5.9 Yes



Hartley Co. AD 180% 7% 10.40% 17.40% 92.10% 17.7 Yes

Haskell Memorial HD 150% 5% 2.52% 7.52% 109.60% 0 Yes

Hays Co. ESD #5 100% 4% 2.72% 6.72% 24.20% 19.7 Yes

Hays Co. ESD #6 200% 6% 6.76% 12.76% 87.20% 14.9 Yes

Hemphill Co. AD 200% 7% 10.54% 17.54% 97.70% 2.1 No

Hemphill Co. HD 230% 7% 7.68% 14.68% 102.10% 0 Yes

Hemphill Co. Underground WCD 125% 4% 3.76% 7.76% 98.80% 0 Yes

Henderson Co. 911 Comm. Dist. 200% 7% 10.43% 17.43% 104.50% 0 Yes

Henderson Co. AD 180% 7% 11.16% 18.16% 82.90% 11.4 No

Hidalgo & Cameron Co. ID #9 100% 7% 0.90% 7.90% 118.00% 0 Yes

Hidalgo Co. AD 200% 7% 12.14% 19.14% 87.50% 15.9 No

Hidalgo Co. DD #1 225% 7% 12.13% 19.13% 84.80% 16 Yes

Hidalgo Co. ID #1 100% 5% 4.00% 9.00% 91.20% 14 Yes

Hidalgo Co. ID #2 125% 7% 8.74% 15.74% 89.20% 15.3 Yes

Hidalgo Co. ID #6 150% 7% 7.61% 14.61% 93.60% 16.7 Yes

High Plains Underground WCD #1 125% 7% 5.52% 12.52% 94.70% 2.2 Yes

Hockley Co. AD 150% 7% 7.97% 14.97% 87.50% 2.2 No

Hopkins Co. AD 150% 7% 4.15% 11.15% 110.80% 0 Yes

Housing Auth. City of Abilene 100% 7% 3.07% 10.07% 115.30% 0 Yes

Housing Auth. City of Huntington 100% 4% 2.62% 6.62% 97.90% 0 Yes

Houston Co. AD 150% 7% 10.34% 17.34% 82.50% 10.9 No

Hunt Co. AD 200% 7% 8.29% 15.29% 90.50% 1.4 No

Hutchinson Co. AD 100% 7% 3.47% 10.47% 108.80% 0 No

Iraan General HD 175% 7% 6.44% 13.44% 99.40% 0 Yes

Irion Co. AD 200% 4% 6.08% 10.08% 54.00% 20 No

Jack Co. AD 100% 7% 8.34% 15.34% 90.00% 15.2 No

Jackson Co. AD 100% 6% 3.18% 9.18% 98.50% 0 Yes

Jackson Co. County‐Wide DD 250% 7% 14.39% 21.39% 89.80% 16.4 No

Jasper Co. WCID #1 200% 7% 13.29% 20.29% 79.70% 7.7 Yes

Jefferson Co. DD #3 200% 7% 12.77% 19.77% 84.60% 17 Yes

Jefferson Co. DD #6 225% 7% 14.98% 21.98% 81.80% 15.8 Yes

Jefferson Co. DD #7 150% 7% 15.13% 22.13% 79.00% 13.2 Yes

Jefferson Co. WCID #10 150% 7% 9.18% 16.18% 87.10% 15 Yes

Jim Hogg Co. AD 150% 7% 7.69% 14.69% 100.50% 0 Yes

Jim Hogg Co. ESD #1 100% 4% 0.00% 4.00% 124.80% 0 Yes

53

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Jim Hogg Co. WCID #2 125% 6% 6.99% 12.99% 86.40% 15.7 Yes

Jonah Water SUD 100% 4% 2.39% 6.39% 95.60% 13.4 Yes

Jones Co. AD 130% 7% 9.43% 16.43% 89.10% 15.8 Yes

Karnes Co. AD 160% 6% 9.72% 15.72% 87.20% 12.4 Yes

Karnes Co. HD 200% 6% 7.06% 13.06% 94.50% 16.9 Yes

Kaufman Co. AD 200% 7% 8.27% 15.27% 96.60% 1.7 Yes

Kendall AD 210% 7% 11.49% 18.49% 88.10% 15.3 Yes

Kendall Co. WCID #1 150% 7% 11.48% 18.48% 82.40% 8.1 Yes

Kenedy Co. CAD 100% 7% 5.87% 12.87% 74.70% 20 Yes

Kent Co. Tax AD 200% 7% 16.38% 23.38% 90.80% 10.9 Yes

Kerr Emerg. 911 Network 155% 7% 1.30% 8.30% 126.60% 0 Yes

King Co. AD 200% 7% 5.55% 12.55% 160.80% 0 Yes

Kinney Co. AD 100% 7% 12.61% 19.61% 65.70% 15.4 Yes

La Salle Co. AD 200% 7% 10.60% 17.60% 94.70% 6.5 No

Laguna Madre WD — Cameron Co. 200% 7% 13.83% 20.83% 77.20% 15.6 Yes

Lake Cities MUA 200% 7% 9.05% 16.05% 56.50% 19.8 No

Lake Kiowa SUD 150% 5% 5.32% 10.32% 88.40% 20 Yes

Lakeway MUD — Travis Co. 175% 7% 11.98% 18.98% 83.70% 15.4 Yes

Lamar Co. AD 165% 7% 7.18% 14.18% 85.50% 1.8 No

Lampasas Co. AD 200% 7% 8.76% 15.76% 93.30% 5.1 Yes

Lavaca‐Navidad River Auth. — Jackson Co. 200% 7% 9.36% 16.36% 92.60% 2.7 Yes

Leon Co. CAD 100% 7% 3.75% 10.75% 102.20% 0 No

Liberty Co. CAD 250% 7% 11.41% 18.41% 91.60% 16.8 No

Limestone Co. AD 200% 7% 7.01% 14.01% 100.00% 0 No

Live Oak Co. AD 200% 7% 18.53% 25.53% 78.60% 14.7 No

Loving Co. AD 250% 7% 5.77% 12.77% 133.60% 0 Yes

Lower Trinity GCD 250% 7% 14.13% 21.13% 97.40% 12.4 Yes

Lower Valley WD 250% 6% 8.61% 14.61% 96.70% 12.3 Yes

Lubbock CAD 200% 7% 6.73% 13.73% 100.10% 0 No

Lubbock Co. WCID #1 200% 7% 5.90% 12.90% 125.40% 0 No

Lubbock ECD 200% 7% 9.78% 16.78% 94.40% 7.2 Yes

Lubbock Reese Redevelopment Auth. 100% 5% 2.91% 7.91% 105.20% 0 Yes

Lumberton MUD 200% 6% 7.45% 13.45% 92.50% 10.7 Yes

Lynn Co. AD 125% 5% 7.52% 12.52% 85.50% 15.3 Yes

Lynn Co. HD 175% 6% 5.44% 11.44% 98.20% 6 No

Macedonia‐Eylau MUD — Bowie Co. 200% 7% 10.60% 17.60% 91.60% 14.6 Yes

Mackenzie MWA — Briscoe Co. 100% 7% 0.97% 7.97% 110.60% 0 Yes

Madison Co. AD 200% 7% 11.83% 18.83% 82.70% 15.6 Yes

Marion Co. AD 100% 7% 0.00% 7.00% 169.40% 0 Yes

Marshall‐Harrison Co. Health Dist. 150% 7% 1.52% 8.52% 140.80% 0 Yes

Martin Co. AD 200% 7% 11.24% 18.24% 91.20% 14.6 Yes

Matagorda Co. DD 200% 7% 12.16% 19.16% 83.50% 15.9 No

Matagorda Co. HD 160% 6% 5.20% 11.20% 97.10% 18.4 Yes

Matagorda Co. ND #1 200% 7% 8.43% 15.43% 114.90% 0 No

Maverick Co. HD 200% 6% 5.06% 11.06% 124.90% 0 Yes

Maverick Co. WCID #1 100% 5% 1.20% 6.20% 105.70% 0 Yes

McCamey Co. HD 100% 7% 3.74% 10.74% 116.40% 0 Yes

McCulloch Co. AD 200% 7% 10.17% 17.17% 92.90% 17 Yes

McLennan Co. 911 EAD 250% 7% 10.70% 17.70% 110.20% 0 Yes

54

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

McLennan Co. AD 175% 7% 12.59% 19.59% 83.50% 13.7 Yes

McLennan Co. WCID #2 100% 4% 2.05% 6.05% 127.80% 0 Yes

Medical Arts Hospital — Dawson Co. 100% 4% 2.75% 6.75% 72.90% 19.3 No

Medina Co. 911 Dist. 150% 6% 6.80% 12.80% 99.50% 16.2 No

Medina Co. AD 150% 6% 7.21% 13.21% 93.20% 13.6 No

Memorial Med. Ctr. — Calhoun Co. 175% 7% 8.02% 15.02% 92.30% 15.7 Yes

Mesa Underground WCD 100% 7% 5.67% 12.67% 98.10% 10.9 Yes

Middle Rio Grande Development Council 250% 7% 17.09% 24.09% 85.90% 13.6 No

Midland CAD 200% 7% 14.59% 21.59% 90.20% 15.7 No

Midland ECD 200% 7% 13.40% 20.40% 84.40% 15.1 Yes

Mills CAD 200% 4% 3.98% 7.98% 105.20% 0 Yes

Mitchell Co. AD 150% 7% 0.42% 7.42% 135.30% 0 No

Montague Co. Tax AD 200% 7% 16.66% 23.66% 85.10% 9.3 Yes

Montgomery CAD 225% 7% 14.47% 21.47% 86.40% 10.4 Yes

Montgomery Co. ECD 200% 7% 16.32% 23.32% 83.80% 14.9 Yes

Montgomery Co. ESD #1 250% 7% 12.70% 19.70% 91.60% 18.7 No

Montgomery Co. ESD #3 100% 7% 4.17% 11.17% 95.20% 13.8 Yes

Montgomery Co. ESD #8 200% 7% 8.87% 15.87% 73.50% 15 Yes

Montgomery Co. HD 150% 7% 6.10% 13.10% 90.40% 12.9 Yes

Montgomery Co. Housing Auth. 150% 7% 8.88% 15.88% 93.20% 19.3 Yes

Moore Co. AD 125% 7% 5.46% 12.46% 108.30% 0 No

Moore Co. HD 170% 7% 4.97% 11.97% 105.50% 0 No

Mustang SUD 100% 5% 2.23% 7.23% 109.30% 0 Yes

Navarro CAD 175% 7% 13.78% 20.78% 81.00% 16 Yes

Newton CAD 225% 7% 14.28% 21.28% 87.90% 15.2 Yes

North Central TX MWA 100% 7% 8.16% 15.16% 89.80% 16.2 Yes

North Hunt SUD 100% 4% 2.65% 6.65% 63.70% 20 Yes

North Plains GCD 120% 7% 5.67% 12.67% 58.30% 4.5 Yes

North TX Tollway Auth. 250% 6% 7.96% 13.96% 103.80% 0 No

Northeast TX MWD 120% 7% 3.51% 10.51% 104.20% 0 Yes

Northeast TX Public Health Dist. 200% 5% 4.16% 9.16% 106.50% 0 Yes

Nueces Co. AD 225% 7% 11.86% 18.86% 86.30% 15.1 Yes

Nueces Co. DD #2 200% 5% 2.52% 7.52% 110.30% 0 Yes

Nueces Co. ESD #2 200% 7% 9.36% 16.36% 95.70% 7.1 Yes

Nueces Co. WCID #3 120% 7% 7.52% 14.52% 90.80% 15.4 Yes

Nueces Co. WCID #4 225% 7% 17.12% 24.12% 80.20% 14.5 Yes

Oldham Co. AD 175% 5% 5.22% 10.22% 101.40% 0 Yes

Orange Co. AD 200% 7% 12.47% 19.47% 89.20% 16.9 No

Orange Co. DD 200% 7% 13.06% 20.06% 87.80% 13.7 Yes

Orange Co. ESD #1 100% 5% 2.74% 7.74% 101.60% 0 Yes

Orange Co. ESD #2 100% 4% 2.91% 6.91% 38.60% 19.8 Yes

Orange Co. Navigation & Port Dist. 100% 7% 6.06% 13.06% 94.10% 14.6 Yes

Orange Co. WCID #1 110% 7% 4.27% 11.27% 99.70% 6.3 Yes

Palo Duro River Auth. 150% 7% 7.57% 14.57% 99.40% 5.6 Yes

Palo Pinto AD 125% 7% 5.65% 12.65% 91.90% 14 Yes

Parker Co. AD 200% 6% 13.93% 19.93% 73.70% 13.1 No

Parker Co. HD 100% 6% 6.94% 12.94% 37.90% 19 Yes

Parker Co. SUD 100% 5% 3.36% 8.36% 105.60% 0 Yes

Parmer Co. AD 100% 7% 2.25% 9.25% 147.90% 0 No

55

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Pecan Valley GCD 125% 7% 5.95% 12.95% 112.40% 0 Yes

Pecos Co. AD 190% 7% 10.27% 17.27% 90.10% 18.1 No

Pecos Co. WCID #1 110% 7% 5.81% 12.81% 97.00% 12.1 Yes

Permian Basin Reg. Plan. Comsn. 125% 6% 3.81% 9.81% 106.50% 0 Yes

Permian Reg. Med Ctr. 200% 7% 7.93% 14.93% 93.90% 15.4 Yes

Pineywoods GCD 200% 7% 12.82% 19.82% 85.20% 15.6 Yes

Polk CAD 250% 7% 11.16% 18.16% 92.00% 15.4 No

Polk Co. Fresh WSD #2 150% 7% 4.98% 11.98% 139.50% 0 Yes

Port of Bay City Auth. 200% 7% 9.84% 16.84% 96.90% 14.8 No

Port of Beaumont ND 200% 7% 11.79% 18.79% 89.50% 7.7 Yes

Port of Corpus Christi Auth. 100% 7% 2.85% 9.85% 103.70% 0 Yes

Port of Port Arthur ND 100% 7% 0.85% 7.85% 117.30% 0 Yes

Post Oak Savannah GCD 100% 7% 4.33% 11.33% 109.30% 0 Yes

Potter‐Randall Co. ECD 250% 7% 15.61% 22.61% 84.00% 15.7 No

Presidio AD 100% 7% 6.15% 13.15% 79.10% 16.3 Yes

Rains Co. AD 225% 7% 12.41% 19.41% 90.60% 17.3 No

Randall Co. AD 100% 7% 10.16% 17.16% 94.10% 4.7 No

Rankin Co. HD — Upton Co. 175% 7% 6.28% 13.28% 105.80% 0 Yes

Reagan HD 150% 7% 6.69% 13.69% 94.60% 2.1 Yes

Red Bluff WPCD — Reeves Co. 125% 7% 11.87% 18.87% 81.20% 15.4 Yes

Red River AD 160% 7% 7.85% 14.85% 61.90% 7.2 No

Red River Auth. — Wichita Co. 180% 7% 3.32% 10.32% 110.60% 0 Yes

Reeves Co. AD 225% 7% 11.92% 18.92% 78.40% 12.4 Yes

Reeves Co. HD 150% 7% 5.45% 12.45% 100.60% 0 No

Refugio Co. DD #1 100% 7% 7.35% 14.35% 87.50% 15.5 Yes

Refugio GCD 125% 7% 4.59% 11.59% 126.60% 0 Yes

Rio Grande COG 250% 6% 10.09% 16.09% 62.60% 9.1 Yes

Rockwall CAD 200% 7% 10.56% 17.56% 89.00% 3.7 Yes

Rusk Co. AD 150% 7% 7.99% 14.99% 99.40% 7.8 Yes

Rusk Co. GCD 100% 7% 5.29% 12.29% 95.70% 13.9 Yes

Sabine Co. AD 100% 7% 5.71% 12.71% 77.50% 18.8 Yes

Sabine Pass Port Auth. 100% 7% 6.93% 13.93% 89.90% 15.4 Yes

Sabine‐Neches ND — Jefferson Co. 200% 7% 9.56% 16.56% 89.30% 16.1 Yes

San Jacinto Co. CAD 200% 7% 7.24% 14.24% 101.60% 0 No

San Patricio Co. AD 175% 7% 4.26% 11.26% 108.70% 0 Yes

San Patricio Co. DD 100% 4% 21.65% 25.65% 62.70% 15.2 Yes

San Patricio Co. ND 200% 7% 12.27% 19.27% 81.80% 12.5 Yes

San Patricio MWD 125% 7% 4.78% 11.78% 101.30% 0 Yes

Santo SUD 250% 7% 13.79% 20.79% 84.60% 11.6 Yes

Scurry Co. HD 175% 7% 6.32% 13.32% 107.90% 0 Yes

Shackelford Co. AD 100% 7% 8.60% 15.60% 92.90% 16.8 No

Shelby Co. AD 100% 6% 3.75% 9.75% 98.10% 7.5 Yes

Sherman Co. AD 105% 7% 6.69% 13.69% 93.30% 14.4 Yes

Smith Co. 911 Comm. Dist. 200% 7% 3.77% 10.77% 109.10% 0 Yes

Smith Co. AD 250% 7% 3.64% 10.64% 110.40% 0 No

Somervell Co. CAD 200% 7% 7.47% 14.47% 99.10% 17.7 Yes

Somervell Co. WD 235% 7% 12.55% 19.55% 96.50% 15.8 Yes

South Plains Assoc. of Governments 200% 6% 9.34% 15.34% 66.20% 15.3 Yes

South TX Development Council 150% 7% 11.51% 18.51% 84.60% 13.3 Yes

56

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Southeast TX GCD 250% 7% 12.66% 19.66% 97.90% 12.7 Yes

Starr Co. AD 200% 7% 13.78% 20.78% 89.60% 15.9 Yes

Stephens Co. Tax AD 180% 7% 9.70% 16.70% 86.40% 19.3 No

Sterling Co. AD 175% 4% 5.06% 9.06% 45.20% 19.6 Yes

Stonewall Co. AD 125% 7% 4.50% 11.50% 170.80% 0 Yes

Stonewall Memorial HD 100% 4% 2.46% 6.46% 96.60% 17.6 Yes

Stratford HD — Sherman Co. 150% 5% 2.50% 7.50% 117.90% 0 Yes

Sutton Co. HD 200% 7% 7.41% 14.41% 97.40% 12.3 Yes

Swisher Co. AD 175% 7% 18.16% 25.16% 85.80% 16.1 Yes

Tarrant AD 225% 7% 13.08% 20.08% 89.60% 13.3 No

Tarrant Co. 911 EAD 200% 7% 5.23% 12.23% 107.60% 0 No

Tax AD of Cottle Co. 100% 7% 5.74% 12.74% 98.70% 3 Yes

TCDRS 200% 7% 10.12% 17.12% 89.50% 12.5 Yes

Terrell Co. WCID #1 115% 7% 1.98% 8.98% 130.50% 0 Yes

Terry Memorial HD 180% 5% 3.44% 8.44% 104.70% 0 Yes

Texas Assoc. of Counties 220% 7% 3.36% 10.36% 122.30% 0 Yes

Texas Eastern 911 Network 150% 7% 7.27% 14.27% 101.00% 0 Yes

Titus Co. AD 100% 7% 3.55% 10.55% 107.50% 0 Yes

Titus Co. Fresh WSD 200% 7% 9.65% 16.65% 93.70% 14.7 Yes

Travis CAD 225% 7% 14.07% 21.07% 85.40% 6.6 No

Travis Co. ESD #1 North Lake F&R 150% 5% 4.16% 9.16% 102.40% 0 Yes

Travis Co. ESD #4 100% 4% 2.74% 6.74% 11.00% 19.8 Yes

Travis Co. WCID — Point Venture 100% 5% 3.51% 8.51% 101.50% 0 Yes

Tri‐County SUD 100% 6% 3.98% 9.98% 98.70% 14.1 Yes

Trinity Bay Conservation Dist. 200% 7% 14.62% 21.62% 75.50% 14.9 Yes

Trinity Co. AD 175% 6% 6.80% 12.80% 52.60% 18.1 No

Trophy Club MUD #1 200% 7% 8.69% 15.69% 105.10% 0 Yes

Two Way SUD 200% 7% 9.81% 16.81% 97.90% 10.4 Yes

Tyler Co. AD 250% 7% 10.39% 17.39% 96.90% 18.5 No

United ID — Hidalgo Co. 150% 7% 6.36% 13.36% 97.40% 5.1 Yes

Upper Brushy Creek WCID 250% 4% 7.33% 11.33% 104.30% 0 No

Upper Trinity GCD 100% 5% 3.91% 8.91% 108.00% 0 Yes

Upton Co. AD 150% 7% 7.30% 14.30% 98.60% 0.1 No

Valley MUD #2 — Cameron Co. 100% 7% 5.00% 12.00% 85.70% 13.4 Yes

Valwood Improvement Auth. — Dallas Co. 200% 4% 7.82% 11.82% 90.00% 15.2 Yes

Van Zandt Co. AD 175% 7% 8.30% 15.30% 93.50% 15.3 Yes

Velasco DD — Brazoria Co. 100% 7% 10.08% 17.08% 77.30% 16.9 Yes

Victoria Co. DD #3 200% 7% 15.16% 22.16% 91.20% 16.2 Yes

Victoria Co. GCD 150% 5% 5.70% 10.70% 94.50% 19.7 Yes

Walker Co. SUD 180% 6% 5.54% 11.54% 103.40% 0 Yes

Waller Co. AD 225% 7% 8.00% 15.00% 103.50% 0 No

Ward Co. CAD 140% 6% 7.34% 13.34% 95.20% 15.5 No

Ward Memorial Hospital 200% 7% 8.93% 15.93% 93.40% 16.9 Yes

Webb Co. AD 135% 7% 6.10% 13.10% 93.00% 15.3 No

West Central TX COG 250% 7% 13.44% 20.44% 85.40% 16.5 Yes

West Central TX MWD 150% 7% 9.64% 16.64% 84.90% 15.9 Yes

West Jefferson Co. MWD 200% 6% 12.19% 18.19% 89.50% 15.4 Yes

West Nueces‐Las Moras Soil & WCD #236 100% 7% 3.31% 10.31% 104.30% 0 Yes

Wharton Co. WCID #1 140% 5% 5.15% 10.15% 97.80% 0.2 No

57

APPENDIX C‐2



Funded

Ratio


Employer

Match1

Amortization

Period (Years)

Social

Security

Wheeler Co. AD 175% 7% 12.29% 19.29% 81.60% 16.6 No

White River MWD — Dickens Co. 100% 7% 0.00% 7.00% 134.20% 0 Yes

Wichita AD 225% 7% 6.20% 13.20% 108.40% 0 No

Wichita Co. WID #2 125% 7% 13.66% 20.66% 85.00% 15.1 Yes

Wichita‐Wilbarger 911 Dist. 200% 7% 7.06% 14.06% 101.20% 0 Yes

Wickson Creek SUD — Brazos Co. 200% 7% 8.44% 15.44% 98.40% 4.1 Yes

Wilbarger Co. AD 175% 7% 4.85% 11.85% 142.40% 0 Yes

Wilbarger Co. HD 100% 5% 1.84% 6.84% 107.90% 0 Yes

Willacy Co. AD 175% 7% 16.04% 23.04% 82.30% 15.4 No

Willacy Co. Housing Auth. 200% 5% 4.98% 9.98% 148.10% 0 Yes

Williamson CAD 250% 7% 15.11% 22.11% 86.40% 11.2 No

Williamson Co. ESD #3 150% 5% 5.50% 10.50% 94.90% 13.4 Yes

Wilson Co. AD 200% 7% 10.87% 17.87% 87.20% 17.2 No

Winkler Co. AD 150% 7% 8.66% 15.66% 97.10% 10.4 No

Wise Co. AD 200% 7% 7.28% 14.28% 99.60% 19.5 No

Wood Co. AD 175% 7% 9.12% 16.12% 90.50% 15.5 Yes

Yoakum Co. AD 150% 7% 8.59% 15.59% 95.80% 15.4 Yes

Zapata Co. AD 200% 6% 10.09% 16.09% 84.70% 15.5 Yes

Zavala Co. AD 100% 7% 0.00% 7.00% 130.00% 0 No

Unweighted Average 91.29% 10.79

Percentage of Plans Covered by Social Security 82.93%

[1] TCDRS retirement benefit is account balance based. The annual amount crediited to an employee’s individual account is the employee’s contributions over the year.

The individual account is credited with interest until withdrawal or retirement. At retirement, the individual account balance is matched by the employer at the selected

available to be converted into an annuity is 15% of pay(5% employee plus 10% employer) plus interest.

percentage, and the sum is converted to an annuity. For example, if a plan has a 5% employee contribution and a 200% employer match, the amount

58

Appendix C‐3

Counties and Districts in TCDRS that Enacted Plan Changes Effective January 1, 2014

County or District Plan Design ChangeActon Municipal Utility District Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Alamo Area Council of Governments Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Anderson County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Archer County Appraisal District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 175%.

Armstrong County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Atascosa County Appraisal District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 175% to 200%.

Bastrop County Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Benbrook Water Authority Changed Employer Matching Rate from 140% to 150%.

Bexar Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Bexar County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Bexar County Water Control and Improvement District #10 Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Bexar Metro 9‐1‐1 Network District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Bexar‐Medina‐Atascosa WCID #1 Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Bosque County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 150% to 200%.

Brazoria County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Brazoria County Drainage District #4 Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Brazoria County Drainage District #5 Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 7%.

Brazos Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Brewster County Adopted an ad hoc 60% CPI‐Based COLA.

Bright Star‐Salem Special Utility District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

Cameron County Emergency Communication District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 120% to 200%.

Carson County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 150% to 200%.

Castro County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Coke County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 150% to 155%.

Collin County Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Comal County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Comal County Emergency Services District #3 Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 6% to 7%.

Dallas Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Denton Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Ector County Hospital District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 7% to 5%.

El Paso County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Falls County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Fayette County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Fort Bend County Adopted an ad hoc 10% CPI‐Based COLA.

Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District #2 Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

Freestone County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 250% to 150%.

Frio County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

" Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 6% to 7%.

Frio County Appraisal District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 6% to 7%.

Galveston Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Glasscock County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 225% to 250%.

Goliad County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Gonzales County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Gonzales County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Grayson County Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 7% to 4%.

Gulf Coast Water Authority ‐ Galveston County Changed Retirement at Age 60 / Vesting from 10 years to 5 years.

" Changed Retirement Age & Service Rule from 80 years to 75 years.

Harris County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

" Changed Employer Matching Rate from 225% to 235%.

Harris County Water Control and Improvement District #50 Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Hartley County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 190% to 200%.

59

Appendix C‐3


County or District Plan Design ChangeHays County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Hays County Emergency Services District #6 Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

Hockley County Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Hopkins County Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Hutchinson County Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Irion County Adopted an ad hoc 10% CPI‐Based COLA.

Jasper County Water Control and Improvement District #1 Changed Employer Matching Rate from 130% to 200%.

Jefferson County Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Karnes County Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Karnes County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Kendall Appraisal District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 7%.

Kendall County Water Control and Improvement District #1 Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Kenedy County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Kent County Adopted an ad hoc 60% CPI‐Based COLA.

Kerr Emergency 9‐1‐1 Network Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 155%.

King County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 225%.

Kinney County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Kinney County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Kleberg County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 100%.

La Salle County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Loving County Adopted an ad hoc 80% CPI‐Based COLA.

Loving County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 80% CPI‐Based COLA.

Lumberton Municipal Utility District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

Macedonia ‐ Eylau Municipal Utility District ‐ Bowie County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 125% to 200%.

Madison County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.



Madison County Appraisal District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 7%.

Martin County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Maverick County Hospital District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 250% to 200%.


McCulloch County Adopted an ad hoc 90% CPI‐Based COLA.

McLennan County Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 7% to 5%.

Midland Central Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Midland County Adopted an ad hoc 20% CPI‐Based COLA.

Montgomery County Emergency Communication District Adopted an ad hoc 70% CPI‐Based COLA.

Montgomery County Housing Authority Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 150%.

Moore County Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Nueces County Water Control and Improvement District #4 Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Ochiltree County Adopted an ad hoc 40% CPI‐Based COLA.

Palo Pinto County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Panola County Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Potter County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Presidio Appraisal District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 4% to 7%.

Randall County Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Reagan County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 225%.

Real County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Reeves County Appraisal District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 225%.

Rio Grande Council of Governments Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 4% to 6%.

Rockwall Central Appraisal District Changed Prior Service Credit from 50% to 80%.

Rockwall County Adopted an ad hoc 90% CPI‐Based COLA.

60

Appendix C‐3


County or District Plan Design ChangeRusk County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Rusk County Groundwater Conservation District Changed Retirement at Age 60 / Vesting from 10 years to 5 years.

Smith County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 100% to 125%.

Smith County Appraisal District Adopted Partial Lump Sum Distribution.

South Plains Association of Governments Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

Sterling County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Stonewall County Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Tarrant Appraisal District Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.


Tarrant Co 9‐1‐1 Emergency Assistance District Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Tarrant County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Terry County Adopted an ad hoc 50% CPI‐Based COLA.

Texas Association of Counties Adopted an ad hoc 60% CPI‐Based COLA.

The Housing Authority of the City of Abilene Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 100%.

" Changed Retirement at Age 60 / Vesting from 10 years to 5 years.

Travis County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Travis Co. Water Control and Improvement Dist ‐ Point Venture Adopted an ad hoc 100% CPI‐Based COLA.

Trinity Bay Conservation District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 175% to 200%.

Trinity County Appraisal District Changed Employer Matching Rate from 125% to 175%.

Upshur County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 200% to 100%.

Valwood Improvement Authority ‐ Dallas County Changed Employer Matching Rate from 175% to 200%.

Victoria County Adopted an ad hoc 70% CPI‐Based COLA.


Walker County Adopted an ad hoc 40% CPI‐Based COLA.

Walker County Special Utility District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.


Wheeler County Adopted an ad hoc 70% CPI‐Based COLA.

Williamson County Adopted an ad hoc 1% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Wilson County Adopted an ad hoc 2% Flat‐Rate COLA.

Wood County Adopted an ad hoc 30% CPI‐Based COLA.

Zapata County Appraisal District Changed Employee Deposit Rate from 5% to 6%.

61

APPENDIX C‐4 Texas County and District Retirement System (TCDRS) Additional Information1

Funded Ratios

1. The table below shows the total number of TCDRS plans within each funded ratio range.

Funded Ratios

Funded Ratio Range Number of Plans Percent of Total

120% or more 24 4%

At least 110% but less than 120% 24 4%





At least 60% but less than 70% * 12 2%



Less than 40% * 8 1%

Total 656 100%

*Plans with funded ratios less than 70% as of 12/31/2013 are typically plans that began

participating recently and are in the process of building assets or plans that have made a recent benefit increase. Benefit increases are funded over a closed 15‐year period. All plans are moving toward 100% funding.

County or District Participation

Date

Funded

Ratio

Cameron County Emergency Communication District 07/01/2012 69.2%

Jasper County 01/01/1979 67.7%

South Plains Association of Governments 10/01/2010 66.2%

Kinney County Appraisal District 10/01/1989 65.7%

East Fork Special Utility District 11/01/2013 65.7%

El Paso Central Appraisal District 10/01/2010 64.9%

Brazos Regional Public Utility Agency 06/01/2012 64.9%

North Hunt Special Utility District 02/01/2013 63.7%

San Patricio County Drainage District 02/01/1973 62.7%

Rio Grande Council of Governments 01/01/2011 62.6%

Clay County Appraisal District 05/01/1981 62.5%

Red River Appraisal District 04/01/2012 61.9%

North Plains Groundwater Conservation District 01/01/2013 58.3%

Lake Cities Municipal Utility Authority 01/01/2013 56.5%

Irion County Appraisal District 01/01/2012 54.0%

1 Information is based on the 12/31/2013 actuarial valuation unless otherwise noted.

62

County or District Participation

Date

Funded

Ratio

Trinity County Appraisal District 08/01/2012 52.6%

Galveston County Fresh Water Supply District #6 05/01/2011 46.7%

Sterling County Appraisal District 07/01/2013 45.2%

Orange County Emergency Services District #2 05/01/2013 38.6%

Parker County Hospital District 01/01/2012 37.9%

Andrews County Appraisal District 09/01/2013 37.5%

Hays County Emergency Services District #5 10/01/2013 24.2%

Duval County Groundwater Conservation District 12/01/2013 20.7%

Brookesmith Special Utility District 10/01/2013 20.3%

Travis County Emergency Services District #4 11/01/2013 11.0%

Harris County Water Control and Improvement District #36 10/01/2013 9.5%

Percent of ARC Funded

2. The table below shows the average percent of ARC funded by employers in TCDRS based

on the system’s current amortization period.

Average Percent of TCDRS Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Made by Employers (Counties and Districts)2

Amortization Period (Years) Average %

Infinite (Never) N/A

At least 40 but less than infinite N/A

At least 25 but less than 40 N/A

At least 15 but less than 25 100%

More than 0 but less than 15 107%

Zero (None)3 172%

Contribution Rates

3. The table below shows the number of TCDRS plans within total contribution rate (employer and employee rate) ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employees and Employers4

Total (Employee + Employer) Contribution Rates Number of Plans

Percent of Total






Less than 5% 1 0%

Total 656 100%

2 ARC information is based on actual FY 2014 contributions by plan sponsors. 3 This calculation does not include four plans that have a required rate of 0%, three of which are electing to contribute something anyway. 4 Information is based on actual FY 2014 contributions by plan sponsors.

63

4. The table below shows the number of TCDRS plans within employer contribution rate ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employers

Employer Contribution Rates Number of Plans Percent of

Total





Less than 5% 98 15%

Total 656 100%

5. The table below shows the number of TCDRS plans within employee contribution rate ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employees

Employee Contribution Rates Number of Plans Percent of Total

Equal to 7% 521 79%

Equal to 6% 50 8%

Equal to 5% 55 8%

Equal to 4% 30 5%

Total 656 100%

64

APPENDIX D‐1 Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) Summary Overview1

The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) was established in 1947 and is an agent multiple‐employer retirement system which provides retirement, disability and survivor benefits for employees of 844 municipalities, covering approximately 200,000 participants and retirees in the state. 2 Although created by the Texas Legislature, TMRS does not receive funding from the State of Texas. Each plan in TMRS is funded independently by the municipalities, its employees and investment earnings. Separate accounting and actuarial records are maintained for each participating municipality’s plan in TMRS. Except for those eligible to phase in the contribution rate increases resulting from the 2007 and 2013 actuarial changes, all participating municipalities are required to pay 100% of the annual required contribution each year. All plan assets of TMRS are pooled for investment purposes, but each participating municipality’s (plan sponsor) plan assets may be used only for the payment of benefits to the members of that sponsor’s plan. Plan design: Each plan sponsor in TMRS has its own retirement plan within the general framework of the TMRS Act. Member benefits in each plan are based on the employee contributions and interest credit combined with plan sponsor matching. A percentage of each employee’s paycheck is credited to an “individual account” (as defined by the TMRS Act) for the member. That percentage is set by the plan sponsor. Plan provisions may vary by plan sponsors depending on the options selected. Retirement eligibility provisions vary; e.g., age 60 with 5 years of service, or 20 years of service regardless of age. Upon retirement, benefits derive from the employee’s contributions with credited interest, and plan sponsor‐financed monetary credits with interest. Interest credit is determined annually by TMRS, and members’ individual accounts are guaranteed a rate of at least 5%. The available employee contribution rates options are 5%, 6% and 7% (some plan sponsors grandfathered at 3%), and a plan sponsor’s matching ratio options are 100%, 150% or 200%. Prior service credits and updated service credits can be provided by the plan sponsor in addition to the current matching service credits. A plan sponsor may adopt an annually repeating or ad‐hoc COLA of 30%, 50% or 70% of the increase in the CPI‐U. Retirement benefits are paid in the form of an annuity, and a partial lump sum option may be available. Funding policy: TMRS does not receive funds from the State, and administrative costs are paid from the investment earnings of the fund. TMRS requires full funding of each employer’s normal cost and amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability over a closed 25 or 30 year period, subject to a phase‐in described below.

Amortization policy: Existing amortization schedules for plans in TMRS reflect the following changes:

December 2007 actuarial cost method change to projected unit credit (generally increasing contributions), and a phase‐in (2009‐2016, inclusive) to help eligible participating cities absorb associated cost increases;

December 2010 fund restructuring and assumption changes, which generally decreased contributions and eliminated the phase‐in for some cities; and

December 2013 change in assumptions and method (to entry age normal). Plans with resulting rate increases were allowed to extend non‐ad hoc bases up to 25 or 30 years to stabilize the contribution rate and any remaining rate increases are to be phased in at 0.5% per year.

Plans with an unfunded liability continue to be amortized on their existing schedule, with new experience losses amortized over either 25 or 30 years. Experience gains are used to reduce existing amortization bases. Ad hoc benefit increases are amortized over 15 year periods using a level dollar policy. For plan sponsors with fewer than twenty employees, more conservative amortization periods are used.

Contribution phase‐in: Some plans in TMRS are still phasing in cost increases that date back to December 2007; these will be fully phased in by 2016. Flexibility for plan sponsors in benefits & contributions: Each plan sponsor in TMRS maintains its own customized plan benefits. The governing body of each plan sponsor has the option to adopt or change plan benefit provisions, on a prospective basis, based on their needs and budget through local action. Plan benefit options include changes

1 Information is based on the 12/31/2013 actuarial valuation unless otherwise noted. 2 TMRS has an additional six inactive municipalities with no active members or employee contributions.

65

in the member contribution rates and/or the plan sponsor matching ratio, prior service credits (relating to service performed before the plan was adopted), updated service credits (recalculated as if the current member deposit rate and matching ratio had always been in effect and the last 36 months average salary had always been earned), and annually repeating or ad‐hoc COLAs. Contribution rates for each plan within TMRS will vary depending upon, among other things, the benefit options selected by a plan sponsor. A plan sponsor can increase or lower the required contribution rate by making changes to the plan benefit options. Key actuarial assumptions & methods:

Investment return (used to discount liabilities): 7.00%

Payroll growth (used for amortization): 3.00%

Actuarial value of assets: Ten‐year smoothing with further adjustment if AVA is not within 15% corridor of market value of assets.

Actuarial cost method: entry age normal

66

APPENDIX D‐2

General Information on Each City Plan in TMRS


Abernathy 1‐1 5% 3.60% 8.60% 90.8% 30.0 YES

Abilene 2‐1 7% 10.42% 17.42% 90.8% 24.2 YES

Addison 2‐1 7% 9.91% 16.91% 96.7% 11.9 YES

Alamo 1.5‐1 5% 7.36% 12.36% 77.5% 26.0 YES

Alamo Heights 2‐1 6% 15.91% 21.91% 69.0% 30.0 YES

Alba 1‐1 5% 2.42% 7.42% 93.2% 10.0 YES

Albany 1.5‐1 5% 4.15% 9.15% 92.0% 30.0 YES

Aledo 2‐1 7% 4.61% 11.61% 90.9% 30.0 YES

Alice 2‐1 5% 9.88% 14.88% 83.1% 24.0 YES

Allen 2‐1 7% 13.88% 20.88% 79.8% 30.0 YES

Alpine 2‐1 5% 0.85% 5.85% 114.7% 0.0 YES

Alto 2‐1 7% 5.07% 12.07% 95.1% 30.0 YES

Alton 2‐1 7% 8.58% 15.58% 83.5% 30.0 NO

Alvarado 2‐1 6% 4.09% 10.09% 91.8% 30.0 YES

Alvin 2‐1 7% 16.58% 23.58% 77.2% 21.0 YES

Alvord 2‐1 5% 6.10% 11.10% 82.1% 22.0 YES

Amarillo 2‐1 7% 11.26% 18.26% 86.7% 21.1 YES

Amherst 1‐1 5% 9.63% 14.63% 68.8% 30.0 YES

Anahuac 2‐1 5% 8.60% 13.60% 87.9% 30.0 YES

Andrews 2‐1 7% 16.35% 23.35% 81.8% 22.0 YES

Angleton 2‐1 6% 12.41% 18.41% 79.2% 26.0 YES

Anna 2‐1 7% 11.94% 18.94% 71.8% 30.0 YES

Anson 1‐1 5% 1.34% 6.34% 98.2% 7.0 YES

Anthony 1‐1 5% 2.85% 7.85% 70.5% 25.0 YES

Aransas Pass 2‐1 6% 11.69% 17.69% 73.9% 30.0 YES

Archer City 1.5‐1 5% 3.50% 8.50% 91.5% 25.0 YES

Argyle 2‐1 7% 15.12% 22.12% 75.7% 28.0 NO

Arlington 2‐1 7% 15.50% 22.50% 83.9% 22.0 NO

Arp 1‐1 5% 2.01% 7.01% 101.3% 0.0 NO

Aspermont 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 143.2% 0.0 YES

Athens 2‐1 7% 21.14% 28.14% 63.8% 24.0 YES

Atlanta 1‐1 5% 4.36% 9.36% 93.1% 21.0 YES

Aubrey 1.5‐1 7% 1.08% 8.08% 113.8% 0.0 NO

Avinger 1‐1 7% 1.66% 8.66% 114.3% 0.0 NO

Azle 2‐1 6% 12.02% 18.02% 78.4% 26.0 NO

Baird 1‐1 5% 0.34% 5.34% 113.6% 0.0 YES

Balch Springs 2‐1 7% 15.32% 22.32% 69.0% 30.0 YES

Balcones Heights 2‐1 7% 17.18% 24.18% 76.5% 30.0 YES

Ballinger 1‐1 5% 3.37% 8.37% 98.7% 16.0 YES

Balmorhea 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 229.6% 0.0 YES

Bandera 2‐1 7% 11.03% 18.03% 96.1% 15.0 YES

Bangs 2‐1 7% 13.86% 20.86% 85.8% 24.0 YES

Bartlett 1.5‐1 7% 5.33% 12.33% 102.5% 0.0 YES

Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

67

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Bartonville 2‐1 7% 10.23% 17.23% 64.2% 17.7 NO

Bastrop 2‐1 6% 10.54% 16.54% 79.8% 30.0 YES

Bay City 2‐1 5% 10.50% 15.50% 84.4% 22.0 YES

Bayou Vista 1.5‐1 5% 3.06% 8.06% 113.9% 0.0 YES

Baytown 2‐1 7% 17.91% 24.91% 77.6% 24.0 YES

Beaumont 2‐1 7% 19.71% 26.71% 78.4% 21.0 YES

Bedford 2‐1 5% 6.08% 11.08% 47.4% 30.0 NO

Bee Cave 2‐1 7% 6.90% 13.90% 89.5% 30.0 NO

Beeville 2‐1 5% 0.56% 5.56% 121.9% 0.0 YES

Bellaire 2‐1 7% 22.29% 29.29% 78.1% 23.0 YES

Bellmead 2‐1 6% 8.66% 14.66% 91.6% 30.0 YES

Bells 1‐1 5% 0.42% 5.42% 123.1% 0.0 YES

Bellville 2‐1 5% 14.16% 19.16% 69.6% 21.0 YES

Belton 2‐1 5% 6.78% 11.78% 88.4% 30.0 YES

Benbrook 2‐1 7% 17.75% 24.75% 81.7% 25.0 YES

Berryville 1‐1 7% 1.65% 8.65% 110.7% 0.0 NO

Bertram 1‐1 5% 2.38% 7.38% 88.6% 25.0 YES

Big Lake 2‐1 7% 18.88% 25.88% 66.6% 23.0 YES

Big Sandy 1‐1 5% 2.99% 7.99% 90.3% 10.0 YES

Big Spring 2‐1 7% 16.28% 23.28% 77.3% 23.0 NO

Bishop 1‐1 5% 5.05% 10.05% 91.8% 14.0 YES

Blanco 1‐1 5% 1.21% 6.21% 104.7% 0.0 YES

Blooming Grove 2‐1 5% 7.51% 12.51% 85.9% 30.0 YES

Blossom 2‐1 5% 3.59% 8.59% 108.9% 0.0 YES

Blue Mound 2‐1 5% 2.84% 7.84% 94.1% 30.0 YES

Blue Ridge 1‐1 7% 0.04% 7.04% 130.0% 0.0 YES

Boerne 2‐1 7% 17.84% 24.84% 66.6% 30.0 YES

Bogata 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 139.8% 0.0 YES

Bonham 1.5‐1 6% 5.08% 11.08% 94.8% 11.0 YES

Booker 1.5‐1 5% 4.40% 9.40% 101.6% 0.0 YES

Borger 2‐1 7% 15.91% 22.91% 77.8% 26.0 NO

Bovina 1‐1 5% 0.45% 5.45% 114.1% 0.0 YES

Bowie 2‐1 5% 10.31% 15.31% 83.5% 25.0 YES

Boyd 1‐1 7% 0.56% 7.56% 108.2% 0.0 YES

Brady 2‐1 6% 10.46% 16.46% 77.6% 27.0 YES

Brazoria 2‐1 5% 8.15% 13.15% 92.1% 11.0 YES

Breckenridge 1.5‐1 5% 7.79% 12.79% 81.9% 30.0 YES

Bremond 2‐1 7% 14.32% 21.32% 62.0% 9.6 YES

Brenham 2‐1 5% 6.02% 11.02% 93.4% 10.1 YES

Bridge City 2‐1 7% 16.40% 23.40% 77.0% 30.0 YES

Bridgeport 2‐1 7% 12.85% 19.85% 75.0% 30.0 YES

Bronte 1‐1 6% 8.60% 14.60% 69.7% 15.0 YES

Brookshire 2‐1 5% 4.16% 9.16% 102.9% 0.0 YES

68

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Brownfield 2‐1 5% 9.67% 14.67% 87.5% 17.0 YES

Brownsville 2‐1 7% 18.37% 25.37% 78.3% 21.0 YES

Brownsville PUB 1.5‐1 7% 13.25% 20.25% 82.9% 22.0 YES

Brownwood 2‐1 7% 14.73% 21.73% 78.8% 25.0 YES

Brownwood Health Dept. 2‐1 7% 8.65% 15.65% 89.3% 30.0 NO

Brownwood Public Library 2‐1 5% 3.52% 8.52% 127.6% 0.0 NO

Bruceville‐Eddy 1.5‐1 7% 3.16% 10.16% 109.3% 0.0 NO

Bryan 2‐1 7% 15.50% 22.50% 80.3% 25.0 YES

Bryson 1.5‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 130.4% 0.0 YES

Buda 2‐1 7% 10.23% 17.23% 78.5% 30.0 YES

Buffalo 2‐1 5% 4.44% 9.44% 101.4% 0.0 YES

Bullard 2‐1 5% 5.51% 10.51% 81.0% 30.0 YES

Bulverde 2‐1 6% 6.89% 12.89% 84.9% 30.0 NO

Bunker Hill Village 2‐1 7% 9.13% 16.13% 102.0% 0.0 YES

Burkburnett 2‐1 7% 10.09% 17.09% 86.2% 29.0 YES

Burleson 2‐1 7% 15.12% 22.12% 75.2% 30.0 YES

Burnet 2‐1 7% 12.05% 19.05% 81.4% 30.0 YES

Cactus 1‐1 5% 0.26% 5.26% 110.2% 0.0 YES

Caddo Mills 1.5‐1 5% 3.01% 8.01% 91.2% 30.0 YES

Caldwell 2‐1 5% 9.35% 14.35% 92.2% 12.0 YES

Calvert 1‐1 5% 1.27% 6.27% 124.9% 0.0 YES

Cameron 1.5‐1 5% 10.98% 15.98% 70.9% 26.0 YES

Canadian 2‐1 7% 15.61% 22.61% 68.0% 30.0 YES

Canton 2‐1 7% 11.74% 18.74% 78.9% 26.0 YES

Canyon 2‐1 7% 17.52% 24.52% 81.4% 23.0 YES

Carmine 1‐1 5% 2.22% 7.22% 102.3% 0.0 YES

Carrizo Springs 1.5‐1 5% 4.85% 9.85% 93.0% 30.0 YES

Carrollton 2‐1 7% 12.45% 19.45% 91.8% 16.0 NO

Carthage 2‐1 7% 18.89% 25.89% 77.7% 22.0 YES

Castle Hills 1.5‐1 7% 13.30% 20.30% 81.8% 26.0 YES

Castroville 2‐1 5% 7.74% 12.74% 86.1% 30.0 YES

Cedar Hill 2‐1 7% 13.15% 20.15% 83.8% 27.0 YES

Cedar Park 2‐1 7% 9.10% 16.10% 84.3% 30.0 YES

Celeste 1‐1 5% 6.01% 11.01% 32.5% 20.0 YES

Celina 2‐1 7% 4.09% 11.09% 114.4% 0.0 YES

Center 2‐1 7% 15.44% 22.44% 71.8% 26.0 YES

Centerville 1‐1 7% 1.92% 8.92% 99.2% 2.0 YES

Chandler 1‐1 5% 5.17% 10.17% 55.2% 17.0 NO

Charlotte 2‐1 3% 6.21% 9.21% 89.8% 14.0 YES

Chester 2‐1 6% 1.85% 7.85% 105.3% 0.0 NO

Chico 1‐1 5% 3.06% 8.06% 90.3% 14.0 YES

Childress 2‐1 7% 14.70% 21.70% 74.8% 30.0 YES

Chireno 2‐1 7% 18.67% 25.67% 71.4% 27.0 NO

69

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Christine 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 140.5% 0.0 NO

Cibolo 2‐1 7% 10.16% 17.16% 79.8% 30.0 YES

Cisco 1.5‐1 5% 3.02% 8.02% 108.2% 0.0 YES

Clarendon 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 119.8% 0.0 YES

Clarksville 2‐1 5% 3.80% 8.80% 113.5% 0.0 YES

Clarksville City 2‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 115.3% 0.0 YES

Clear Lake Shores 2‐1 6% 9.50% 15.50% 81.1% 30.0 NO

Cleburne 2‐1 7% 18.09% 25.09% 73.9% 25.0 YES

Cleveland 2‐1 5% 10.52% 15.52% 78.2% 26.0 YES

Clifton 1‐1 5% 0.95% 5.95% 107.8% 0.0 YES

Clute 2‐1 7% 10.60% 17.60% 91.7% 29.0 YES

Clyde 2‐1 7% 12.85% 19.85% 77.4% 30.0 YES

Coahoma 2‐1 5% 4.51% 9.51% 102.7% 0.0 YES

Cockrell Hill 2‐1 7% 6.36% 13.36% 104.7% 0.0 YES

Coleman 2‐1 7% 18.57% 25.57% 75.6% 19.0 YES

College Station 2‐1 7% 13.22% 20.22% 85.1% 24.0 YES

Colleyville 2‐1 7% 6.87% 13.87% 104.0% 0.0 YES

Collinsville 1‐1 6% 0.48% 6.48% 122.4% 0.0 YES

Colmesneil 2‐1 5% 6.63% 11.63% 75.0% 10.5 YES

Colorado City 2‐1 6% 7.76% 13.76% 95.4% 30.0 YES

Columbus 2‐1 6% 13.36% 19.36% 80.3% 21.0 YES

Comanche 1‐1 5% 5.30% 10.30% 87.2% 24.0 YES

Commerce 2‐1 5% 8.89% 13.89% 86.7% 27.0 YES

Conroe 2‐1 7% 16.45% 23.45% 76.1% 23.0 YES

Converse 2‐1 7% 14.20% 21.20% 74.9% 30.0 NO

Cooper 1‐1 6% 5.65% 11.65% 92.5% 9.0 YES

Coppell 2‐1 7% 15.43% 22.43% 84.1% 26.0 NO

Copper Canyon 2‐1 7% 7.42% 14.42% 93.0% 30.0 NO

Copperas Cove 2‐1 6% 12.61% 18.61% 81.5% 30.0 YES

Corinth 2‐1 7% 15.13% 22.13% 74.1% 30.0 NO

Corpus Christi 2‐1 6% 10.06% 16.06% 89.5% 12.7 YES

Corrigan 1‐1 5% 1.12% 6.12% 99.6% 25.0 YES

Corsicana 2‐1 7% 14.01% 21.01% 81.1% 21.0 YES

Cotulla 2‐1 5% 5.51% 10.51% 83.0% 30.0 YES

Crandall 2‐1 7% 9.28% 16.28% 98.5% 30.0 NO

Crane 2‐1 7% 10.50% 17.50% 92.2% 30.0 YES

Crawford 1‐1 5% 0.12% 5.12% 122.3% 0.0 NO

Crockett 2‐1 5% 8.49% 13.49% 90.4% 24.0 YES

Crosbyton 1.5‐1 6% 3.51% 9.51% 101.3% 0.0 YES

Cross Plains 1.5‐1 5% 8.01% 13.01% 91.1% 11.0 YES

Cross Roads 2‐1 7% 6.65% 13.65% 43.7% 30.0 YES

Crowley 2‐1 6% 10.59% 16.59% 82.8% 30.0 YES

Crystal City 2‐1 7% 0.00% 7.00% 125.3% 0.0 YES

70

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Cuero 2‐1 5% 9.88% 14.88% 74.2% 30.0 YES

Cumby 1‐1 5% 2.39% 7.39% 74.0% 30.0 YES

Daingerfield 1.5‐1 5% 6.84% 11.84% 87.7% 27.0 YES

Daisetta 1‐1 5% 0.83% 5.83% 136.1% 0.0 YES

Dalhart 2‐1 5% 3.78% 8.78% 100.9% 0.0 YES

Dalworthington Gardens 2‐1 7% 22.43% 29.43% 56.6% 25.0 YES

Danbury 2‐1 5% 5.86% 10.86% 68.1% 23.0 YES

Darrouzett 1‐1 7% 2.20% 9.20% 91.1% 30.0 YES

Dayton 2‐1 7% 5.71% 12.71% 87.3% 30.0 YES

De Leon 1‐1 5% 1.27% 6.27% 93.8% 30.0 YES

Decatur 2‐1 7% 14.68% 21.68% 74.9% 30.0 YES

Deer Park 2‐1 7% 14.45% 21.45% 88.9% 27.0 YES

Dekalb 1‐1 6% 1.00% 7.00% 120.3% 0.0 YES

Del Rio 1‐1 5% 4.24% 9.24% 64.2% 21.0 YES

Dell City 2‐1 5% 4.46% 9.46% 96.5% 30.0 YES

Denison 2‐1 7% 12.42% 19.42% 88.9% 18.0 YES

Denton 2‐1 7% 17.76% 24.76% 77.3% 21.0 YES

Denver City 2‐1 5% 12.29% 17.29% 90.1% 12.0 YES

Deport 1‐1 5% 7.47% 12.47% 76.2% 12.0 YES

DeSoto 1.5‐1 7% 11.06% 18.06% 88.0% 27.0 YES

Devine 1‐1 5% 8.62% 13.62% 61.4% 21.0 YES

Diboll 2‐1 7% 12.48% 19.48% 82.9% 30.0 YES

Dickens 1‐1 7% 0.50% 7.50% 158.4% 0.0 YES

Dickinson 2‐1 7% 8.47% 15.47% 91.5% 30.0 NO

Dilley 2‐1 5% 6.21% 11.21% 76.1% 30.0 YES

Dimmitt 2‐1 6% 5.46% 11.46% 104.5% 0.0 YES

Donna 1‐1 5% 2.13% 7.13% 100.8% 0.0 YES

Double Oak 2‐1 5% 4.09% 9.09% 96.6% 30.0 YES

Dripping Springs 1‐1 5% 1.75% 6.75% 85.2% 27.0 NO

Driscoll 1‐1 5% 2.78% 7.78% 75.3% 25.0 YES

Dublin 2‐1 7% 14.00% 21.00% 71.3% 30.0 YES

Dumas 1.5‐1 5% 6.19% 11.19% 90.3% 30.0 YES

Duncanville 2‐1 7% 3.86% 10.86% 102.1% 0.0 YES

Eagle Lake 2‐1 6% 7.06% 13.06% 98.7% 25.0 YES

Eagle Pass 2‐1 5% 9.63% 14.63% 92.0% 16.0 YES

Early 1.5‐1 5% 2.85% 7.85% 105.9% 0.0 YES

Earth 1‐1 5% 4.50% 9.50% 71.2% 23.0 YES

East Mountain 2‐1 7% 11.32% 18.32% 87.2% 30.0 NO

East Tawakoni 2‐1 7% 6.07% 13.07% 99.3% 17.0 NO

Eastland 2‐1 5% 8.99% 13.99% 84.9% 27.0 YES

Ector 1‐1 5% 1.65% 6.65% 105.4% 0.0 YES

Eden 1‐1 5% 5.19% 10.19% 90.2% 23.0 YES

Edgewood 1‐1 5% 3.71% 8.71% 79.1% 26.0 YES

71

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Edinburg 2‐1 7% 14.62% 21.62% 68.7% 27.0 YES

Edna 2‐1 5% 11.46% 16.46% 77.3% 21.0 YES

El Campo 1.5‐1 6% 11.77% 17.77% 81.4% 25.0 YES

Eldorado 1.5‐1 6% 6.49% 12.49% 86.9% 30.0 YES

Electra 1‐1 5% 2.22% 7.22% 94.8% 13.0 YES

Elgin 2‐1 6% 11.13% 17.13% 79.8% 27.0 YES

Elkhart 1‐1 5% 5.65% 10.65% 84.0% 23.0 NO

Elmendorf 1‐1 5% 1.02% 6.02% 105.9% 0.0 YES

Emory 2‐1 5% 4.05% 9.05% 104.6% 0.0 YES

Ennis 2‐1 7% 18.32% 25.32% 81.7% 25.0 YES

Euless 2‐1 7% 18.05% 25.05% 84.5% 20.0 NO

Eustace 2‐1 7% 5.30% 12.30% 93.9% 9.1 NO

Everman 2‐1 5% 8.59% 13.59% 85.4% 26.0 YES

Fair Oaks Ranch 2‐1 7% 11.53% 18.53% 85.9% 30.0 YES

Fairfield 2‐1 5% 3.29% 8.29% 111.8% 0.0 YES

Fairview 2‐1 7% 9.04% 16.04% 80.9% 30.0 YES

Falfurrias 1‐1 5% 1.27% 6.27% 98.4% 9.0 YES

Falfurrias Utility Board 1‐1 5% 3.31% 8.31% 82.2% 24.0 YES

Falls City 1‐1 6% 8.85% 14.85% 58.2% 30.0 YES

Farmers Branch 2‐1 7% 18.96% 25.96% 84.1% 21.0 NO

Farmersville 2‐1 5% 9.19% 14.19% 85.3% 30.0 YES

Farwell 2‐1 6% 11.72% 17.72% 85.8% 30.0 YES

Fate 2‐1 7% 7.29% 14.29% 79.6% 30.0 NO

Fayetteville 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 111.2% 0.0 YES

Ferris 1.5‐1 5% 5.99% 10.99% 88.3% 30.0 YES

Flatonia 2‐1 7% 17.84% 24.84% 78.8% 16.0 YES

Florence 2‐1 5% 3.92% 8.92% 96.5% 30.0 YES

Floresville 2‐1 5% 10.91% 15.91% 71.6% 26.0 YES

Flower Mound 2‐1 7% 9.19% 16.19% 90.2% 30.0 YES

Floydada 1.5‐1 5% 10.13% 15.13% 82.4% 22.0 YES

Forest Hill 2‐1 7% 13.11% 20.11% 81.6% 30.0 YES

Forney 2‐1 7% 12.70% 19.70% 73.3% 30.0 YES

Fort Stockton 2‐1 5% 10.60% 15.60% 75.9% 26.0 YES

Franklin 2‐1 5% 2.48% 7.48% 108.7% 0.0 YES

Frankston 1‐1 5% 2.50% 7.50% 79.6% 30.0 YES

Fredericksburg 2‐1 5% 9.77% 14.77% 87.3% 17.0 YES

Freeport 2‐1 7% 12.71% 19.71% 77.6% 30.0 YES

Freer 1‐1 5% 6.41% 11.41% 66.0% 25.0 YES

Friendswood 2‐1 7% 15.79% 22.79% 81.1% 27.0 YES

Friona 2‐1 5% 12.15% 17.15% 83.6% 16.0 YES

Frisco 2‐1 7% 13.78% 20.78% 75.9% 30.0 YES

Fritch 2‐1 7% 1.22% 8.22% 150.3% 0.0 YES

Frost 1‐1 5% 3.07% 8.07% 91.7% 30.0 YES

72

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Fulshear 2‐1 5% 4.70% 9.70% 55.7% 24.3 YES

Fulton 2‐1 6% 17.75% 23.75% 36.9% 9.0 YES

Gainesville 1.5‐1 5% 9.71% 14.71% 79.4% 21.0 YES

Galena Park 2‐1 7% 14.30% 21.30% 82.0% 30.0 YES

Ganado 2‐1 7% 14.07% 21.07% 92.0% 21.0 YES

Garden Ridge 2‐1 5% 6.35% 11.35% 80.2% 30.0 YES

Garland 2‐1 7% 10.87% 17.87% 95.0% 14.0 YES

Garrison 2‐1 6% 15.24% 21.24% 85.5% 21.0 YES

Gary 1‐1 5% 6.93% 11.93% 72.6% 30.0 YES

Gatesville 2‐1 7% 15.40% 22.40% 77.8% 26.0 NO

George West 2‐1 5% 5.34% 10.34% 65.7% 30.0 YES

Georgetown 2‐1 7% 11.71% 18.71% 81.3% 27.0 YES

Giddings 2‐1 7% 18.42% 25.42% 70.6% 20.0 YES

Gilmer 2‐1 6% 13.65% 19.65% 77.5% 26.0 YES

Gladewater 1‐1 5% 3.70% 8.70% 96.1% 30.0 YES

Glen Rose 2‐1 7% 13.06% 20.06% 80.9% 30.0 YES

Glenn Heights 1‐1 6% 3.24% 9.24% 100.1% 0.0 YES

Godley 1‐1 6% 2.27% 8.27% 84.1% 30.0 YES

Goldsmith 1‐1 5% 2.69% 7.69% 95.0% 9.0 YES

Goldthwaite 2‐1 7% 25.81% 32.81% 74.0% 20.0 YES

Goliad 2‐1 5% 1.86% 6.86% 110.2% 0.0 YES

Gonzales 2‐1 5% 11.20% 16.20% 77.3% 27.0 YES

Graford 1‐1 5% 2.53% 7.53% 87.8% 11.0 YES

Graham 2‐1 5% 12.28% 17.28% 79.4% 26.0 YES

Granbury 2‐1 7% 15.54% 22.54% 76.2% 25.0 YES

Grand Prairie 2‐1 7% 16.44% 23.44% 83.5% 22.0 YES

Grand Saline 1‐1 7% 6.38% 13.38% 91.0% 19.0 YES

Grandview 1.5‐1 7% 3.93% 10.93% 104.2% 0.0 YES

Granger 1‐1 5% 0.25% 5.25% 123.1% 0.0 YES

Granite Shoals 2‐1 5% 3.56% 8.56% 93.7% 30.0 YES

Grapeland 1‐1 5% 5.12% 10.12% 78.2% 30.0 YES

Grapevine 2‐1 7% 19.15% 26.15% 77.7% 24.0 NO

Greenville 2‐1 7% 10.59% 17.59% 92.6% 15.0 YES

Gregory 1.5‐1 5% 4.16% 9.16% 109.3% 0.0 YES

Grey Forest Utilities 2‐1 7% 15.84% 22.84% 82.2% 22.0 YES

Groesbeck 1‐1 5% 2.38% 7.38% 81.5% 25.0 YES

Groom 1‐1 5% 2.73% 7.73% 105.2% 0.0 YES

Groves 2‐1 6% 9.58% 15.58% 95.5% 13.0 YES

Groveton 1‐1 5% 1.38% 6.38% 107.0% 0.0 YES

Gruver 2‐1 6% 7.32% 13.32% 97.7% 30.0 YES

Gun Barrel City 2‐1 5% 5.42% 10.42% 91.1% 30.0 YES

Gunter 2‐1 5% 2.75% 7.75% 134.4% 0.0 YES

Hale Center 1‐1 5% 2.85% 7.85% 68.2% 30.0 YES

73

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Hallettsville 2‐1 5% 12.38% 17.38% 84.0% 17.0 YES

Hallsville 1‐1 5% 3.12% 8.12% 65.9% 30.0 YES

Haltom City 2‐1 7% 19.28% 26.28% 76.2% 26.0 NO

Hamilton 2‐1 7% 21.40% 28.40% 72.7% 22.0 YES

Hamlin 2‐1 6% 11.79% 17.79% 86.5% 30.0 YES

Happy 1.5‐1 7% 11.78% 18.78% 82.7% 30.0 YES

Harker Heights 2‐1 7% 14.70% 21.70% 73.6% 30.0 YES

Harlingen 2‐1 7% 8.08% 15.08% 95.1% 13.0 YES

Harlingen Waterworks Sys 1‐1 7% 1.08% 8.08% 102.7% 0.0 YES

Hart 1‐1 5% 2.77% 7.77% 66.8% 26.0 YES

Haskell 1‐1 7% 0.00% 7.00% 128.8% 0.0 YES

Haslet 2‐1 7% 9.08% 16.08% 90.4% 30.0 NO

Hawkins 1.5‐1 6% 2.79% 8.79% 110.9% 0.0 YES

Hays 2‐1 7% 6.35% 13.35% 114.8% 0.0 NO

Hearne 2‐1 7% 15.37% 22.37% 66.1% 27.0 YES

Heath 2‐1 7% 9.87% 16.87% 89.2% 30.0 YES

Hedley 2‐1 5% 0.50% 5.50% 106.3% 0.0 YES

Hedwig Village 2‐1 5% 6.28% 11.28% 88.7% 17.0 YES

Helotes 2‐1 6% 5.82% 11.82% 88.7% 18.2 YES

Hemphill 1.5‐1 5% 5.07% 10.07% 97.1% 4.0 YES

Hempstead 2‐1 5% 9.37% 14.37% 83.3% 30.0 YES

Henderson 2‐1 7% 14.98% 21.98% 75.6% 25.0 YES

Henrietta 2‐1 7% 14.84% 21.84% 74.0% 30.0 YES

Hereford 2‐1 5% 10.67% 15.67% 82.9% 24.0 YES

Hewitt 2‐1 7% 14.77% 21.77% 75.7% 30.0 YES

Hickory Creek 2‐1 7% 11.35% 18.35% 73.9% 30.0 NO

Hico 2‐1 5% 4.56% 9.56% 107.5% 0.0 YES

Hidalgo 2‐1 7% 12.71% 19.71% 79.0% 21.0 YES

Higgins 1‐1 5% 3.86% 8.86% 100.7% 0.0 YES

Highland Park 2‐1 7% 3.95% 10.95% 104.3% 0.0 YES

Highland Village 2‐1 7% 13.29% 20.29% 83.2% 30.0 NO

Hill Country Village 2‐1 5% 3.88% 8.88% 98.7% 30.0 YES

Hillsboro 2‐1 5% 11.23% 16.23% 78.8% 20.0 YES

Hitchcock 2‐1 5% 4.20% 9.20% 97.7% 7.1 YES

Holland 1.5‐1 6% 6.82% 12.82% 87.6% 30.0 YES

Holliday 1.5‐1 5% 1.92% 6.92% 107.7% 0.0 YES

Hollywood Park 1.5‐1 6% 8.78% 14.78% 84.1% 30.0 YES

Hondo 2‐1 5% 9.36% 14.36% 85.3% 30.0 YES

Honey Grove 1.5‐1 5% 7.90% 12.90% 91.8% 19.0 YES

Hooks 1‐1 5% 1.01% 6.01% 109.9% 0.0 YES

Howe 2‐1 5% 4.78% 9.78% 102.4% 0.0 YES

Hubbard 1‐1 5% 0.54% 5.54% 114.1% 0.0 YES

Hudson 2‐1 5% 3.07% 8.07% 100.3% 0.0 YES

74

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Hudson Oaks 2‐1 7% 11.97% 18.97% 71.1% 30.0 NO

Hughes Springs 2‐1 7% 17.29% 24.29% 93.8% 5.0 YES

Humble 2‐1 6% 14.00% 20.00% 84.5% 23.0 YES

Hunters Creek Village 2‐1 7% 11.65% 18.65% 69.2% 30.0 YES

Huntington 2‐1 7% 15.08% 22.08% 78.0% 30.0 YES

Huntsville 2‐1 7% 17.26% 24.26% 74.2% 22.9 NO

Hurst 2‐1 7% 10.11% 17.11% 94.0% 18.7 YES

Hutchins 1.5‐1 7% 6.33% 13.33% 95.7% 30.0 YES

Hutto 2‐1 7% 11.35% 18.35% 80.8% 30.0 NO

Huxley 1.5‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 121.0% 0.0 YES

Idalou 2‐1 5% 3.95% 8.95% 80.5% 30.0 YES

Ingleside 2‐1 5% 10.01% 15.01% 82.9% 30.0 YES

Ingram 1.5‐1 5% 5.03% 10.03% 90.2% 30.0 NO

Iowa Park 2‐1 6% 13.84% 19.84% 79.1% 15.0 YES

Iraan 2‐1 7% 14.18% 21.18% 76.6% 21.0 YES

Irving 2‐1 7% 10.54% 17.54% 96.1% 11.8 YES

Italy 1‐1 5% 2.36% 7.36% 68.8% 30.0 YES

Itasca 2‐1 7% 10.11% 17.11% 97.0% 29.0 YES

Jacinto City 1.5‐1 5% 9.25% 14.25% 80.4% 17.0 YES

Jacksboro 2‐1 7% 12.92% 19.92% 80.1% 30.0 YES

Jacksonville 2‐1 6% 11.33% 17.33% 84.3% 27.0 YES

Jasper 2‐1 7% 9.03% 16.03% 89.8% 14.3 YES

Jefferson 1‐1 5% 4.23% 9.23% 88.0% 20.0 YES

Jersey Village 2‐1 7% 14.82% 21.82% 77.7% 30.0 YES

Jewett 1‐1 7% 8.49% 15.49% 81.9% 25.0 YES

Joaquin 1‐1 5% 3.84% 8.84% 75.9% 30.0 YES

Johnson City 1.5‐1 6% 9.26% 15.26% 75.0% 25.0 YES

Jones Creek 1.5‐1 5% 5.77% 10.77% 83.5% 17.0 YES

Jonestown 2‐1 5% 5.16% 10.16% 85.5% 30.0 YES

Josephine 1.5‐1 6% 5.19% 11.19% 96.3% 30.0 NO

Joshua 2‐1 7% 4.52% 11.52% 103.4% 0.0 NO

Jourdanton 1.5‐1 5% 6.10% 11.10% 89.1% 30.0 YES

Junction 2‐1 7% 12.92% 19.92% 82.8% 30.0 YES

Justin 1‐1 5% 2.44% 7.44% 89.5% 30.0 YES

Karnes City 1‐1 5% 4.70% 9.70% 86.6% 30.0 YES

Katy 2‐1 7% 15.54% 22.54% 83.2% 27.0 YES

Kaufman 2‐1 7% 14.92% 21.92% 78.8% 30.0 YES

Keene 2‐1 7% 14.47% 21.47% 72.3% 24.0 YES

Keller 2‐1 7% 15.53% 22.53% 79.0% 26.0 YES

Kemah 2‐1 7% 4.78% 11.78% 98.4% 30.0 YES

Kemp 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 131.8% 0.0 NO

Kenedy 1‐1 5% 3.88% 8.88% 88.7% 30.0 YES

Kennedale 2‐1 7% 12.83% 19.83% 81.1% 30.0 YES

75

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Kermit 2‐1 7% 15.08% 22.08% 73.0% 30.0 YES

Kerrville 2‐1 7% 8.59% 15.59% 94.4% 30.0 YES

Kerrville PUB 2‐1 7% 11.79% 18.79% 90.3% 27.0 NO

Kilgore 2‐1 7% 15.99% 22.99% 79.3% 29.0 YES

Killeen 2‐1 7% 7.75% 14.75% 88.8% 17.4 YES

Kingsville 1.5‐1 7% 9.59% 16.59% 89.3% 24.0 YES

Kirby 2‐1 7% 12.81% 19.81% 78.3% 30.0 NO

Kirbyville 1‐1 5% 5.56% 10.56% 80.5% 30.0 YES

Knox City 1.5‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 125.2% 0.0 YES

Kountze 1‐1 5% 1.07% 6.07% 103.2% 0.0 YES

Kress 1‐1 7% 10.48% 17.48% 93.5% 7.0 YES

Krugerville 2‐1 7% 5.89% 12.89% 105.4% 0.0 NO

Krum 2‐1 5% 2.87% 7.87% 108.5% 0.0 NO

Kyle 2‐1 7% 10.24% 17.24% 73.6% 30.0 YES

La Coste 1‐1 5% 0.87% 5.87% 118.1% 0.0 YES

La Feria 1‐1 7% 9.76% 16.76% 71.1% 19.0 YES

La Grange 2‐1 7% 16.01% 23.01% 81.0% 21.0 YES

La Grulla 2‐1 5% 3.65% 8.65% 122.5% 0.0 YES

La Joya 1‐1 5% 5.20% 10.20% 34.1% 23.0 YES

La Marque 2‐1 5% 9.34% 14.34% 85.8% 30.0 YES

La Porte 2‐1 7% 16.12% 23.12% 83.8% 20.0 YES

La Vernia 1‐1 5% 2.60% 7.60% 62.7% 30.0 YES

Lacy‐Lakeview 2‐1 7% 13.01% 20.01% 73.8% 30.0 YES

Ladonia 2‐1 7% 1.48% 8.48% 132.4% 0.0 YES

Lago Vista 2‐1 6% 6.63% 12.63% 95.7% 25.0 YES

Laguna Vista 1.5‐1 5% 2.48% 7.48% 102.3% 0.0 YES

Lake Dallas 2‐1 7% 12.15% 19.15% 86.5% 27.0 NO

Lake Jackson 2‐1 6% 12.62% 18.62% 89.0% 16.0 YES

Lake Worth 2‐1 6% 12.35% 18.35% 76.6% 27.0 YES

Lakeport 1.5‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 153.2% 0.0 NO

Lakeside 2‐1 6% 5.65% 11.65% 98.5% 30.0 YES

Lakeside City 1‐1 5% 1.33% 6.33% 104.2% 0.0 NO

Lakeway 2‐1 7% 12.08% 19.08% 76.9% 30.0 YES

Lamesa 1.5‐1 7% 3.75% 10.75% 100.6% 0.0 YES

Lampasas 2‐1 7% 14.56% 21.56% 78.6% 26.0 YES

Lancaster 2‐1 7% 14.00% 21.00% 79.6% 30.0 YES

Laredo 2‐1 7% 21.18% 28.18% 65.7% 21.0 YES

Lavon 2‐1 5% 3.51% 8.51% 103.2% 0.0 NO

League City 2‐1 7% 14.77% 21.77% 75.6% 24.0 YES

Leander 2‐1 7% 11.06% 18.06% 74.6% 30.0 YES

Leon Valley 2‐1 6% 15.67% 21.67% 86.6% 22.0 YES

Leonard 1‐1 5% 0.67% 5.67% 108.9% 0.0 YES

Levelland 2‐1 6% 12.37% 18.37% 88.3% 19.0 YES

76

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Lewisville 2‐1 7% 16.88% 23.88% 79.9% 22.0 NO

Lexington 1.5‐1 6% 8.04% 14.04% 88.3% 30.0 YES

Liberty 2‐1 5% 5.06% 10.06% 86.2% 25.0 YES

Liberty Hill 1‐1 7% 2.56% 9.56% 97.9% 25.0 NO

Lindale 2‐1 6% 15.05% 21.05% 62.8% 22.0 NO

Linden 1‐1 5% 1.56% 6.56% 101.1% 0.0 YES

Lipan 1‐1 5% 1.58% 6.58% 103.7% 0.0 NO

Little Elm 2‐1 7% 11.55% 18.55% 79.4% 30.0 YES

Littlefield 2‐1 5% 9.65% 14.65% 86.9% 22.0 NO

Live Oak 2‐1 7% 17.92% 24.92% 77.5% 23.0 YES

Liverpool 1‐1 5% 1.10% 6.10% 96.6% 30.0 NO

Livingston 2‐1 7% 16.72% 23.72% 82.2% 19.0 YES

Llano 1.5‐1 7% 9.93% 16.93% 77.9% 21.0 YES

Lockhart 2‐1 6% 12.32% 18.32% 83.6% 22.0 YES

Lockney 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 141.5% 0.0 YES

Lone Star 1‐1 5% 3.06% 8.06% 100.3% 0.0 YES

Longview 2‐1 7% 10.08% 17.08% 89.8% 21.5 YES

Loraine 1.5‐1 5% 4.68% 9.68% 85.2% 30.0 YES

Lorena 1.5‐1 6% 5.71% 11.71% 99.4% 30.0 NO

Lorenzo 1.5‐1 5% 2.08% 7.08% 121.2% 0.0 YES

Los Fresnos 1.5‐1 5% 1.04% 6.04% 112.1% 0.0 YES

Lott 1‐1 5% 0.72% 5.72% 127.1% 0.0 YES

Lovelady 1‐1 5% 2.42% 7.42% 69.3% 30.0 YES

Lubbock 2‐1 7% 18.57% 25.57% 79.6% 24.0 YES

Lucas 2‐1 7% 8.44% 15.44% 84.6% 30.0 NO

Lufkin 2‐1 7% 16.20% 23.20% 77.4% 22.0 YES

Luling 2‐1 5% 8.70% 13.70% 77.4% 22.0 YES

Lumberton 2‐1 7% 17.82% 24.82% 70.4% 23.0 NO

Lyford 1‐1 5% 4.20% 9.20% 64.3% 17.0 YES

Lytle 2‐1 5% 8.93% 13.93% 82.9% 20.0 YES

Madisonville 2‐1 5% 8.91% 13.91% 79.6% 25.0 YES

Magnolia 1‐1 6% 0.50% 6.50% 111.3% 0.0 YES

Malakoff 2‐1 7% 4.04% 11.04% 96.5% 30.0 YES

Manor 2‐1 5% 2.87% 7.87% 107.5% 0.0 YES

Mansfield 2‐1 7% 14.49% 21.49% 82.8% 26.0 NO

Manvel 2‐1 5% 3.38% 8.38% 102.4% 0.0 NO

Marble Falls 2‐1 7% 4.43% 11.43% 101.9% 0.0 YES

Marfa 2‐1 5% 0.38% 5.38% 124.3% 0.0 YES

Marion 2‐1 5% 5.02% 10.02% 109.2% 0.0 NO

Marlin 2‐1 5% 7.81% 12.81% 83.0% 30.0 YES

Marshall 2‐1 7% 16.73% 23.73% 82.2% 25.0 YES

Mart 1.5‐1 5% 0.50% 5.50% 122.7% 0.0 YES

Martindale 2‐1 5% 8.52% 13.52% 60.0% 10.0 NO

77

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Mason 1.5‐1 5% 6.37% 11.37% 89.3% 16.0 YES

Matador 1‐1 5% 4.77% 9.77% 74.4% 12.0 YES

Mathis 2‐1 7% 1.85% 8.85% 116.8% 0.0 YES

Maud 1‐1 5% 3.43% 8.43% 21.6% 18.0 YES

Maypearl 1‐1 5% 1.47% 6.47% 100.1% 0.0 YES

McAllen 2‐1 7% 6.53% 13.53% 93.9% 11.5 YES

McCamey 1‐1 7% 1.09% 8.09% 105.3% 0.0 YES

McGregor 2‐1 6% 10.64% 16.64% 81.6% 30.0 YES

McKinney 2‐1 7% 15.56% 22.56% 79.2% 30.0 YES

McLean 1‐1 5% 2.76% 7.76% 90.5% 23.0 YES

Meadowlakes 1‐1 7% 1.46% 8.46% 106.1% 0.0 NO

Meadows Place 2‐1 7% 7.33% 14.33% 96.6% 8.0 NO

Melissa 2‐1 7% 5.55% 12.55% 89.5% 30.0 YES

Memorial Villages PD 2‐1 7% 9.92% 16.92% 84.1% 30.0 NO

Memphis 1.5‐1 5% 5.98% 10.98% 96.8% 8.0 YES

Menard 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 119.4% 0.0 YES

Mercedes 2‐1 7% 19.69% 26.69% 65.6% 23.0 YES

Meridian 2‐1 5% 2.16% 7.16% 112.3% 0.0 YES

Merkel 2‐1 6% 13.74% 19.74% 65.6% 30.0 YES

Mertzon 2‐1 5% 10.64% 15.64% 43.7% 30.0 YES

Mesquite 2‐1 7% 10.46% 17.46% 91.1% 11.6 YES

Mexia 2‐1 7% 12.11% 19.11% 82.3% 30.0 YES

Midland 2‐1 7% 15.04% 22.04% 85.7% 23.0 YES

Midlothian 2‐1 7% 13.72% 20.72% 77.8% 30.0 YES

Miles 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 132.5% 0.0 YES

Milford 1‐1 7% 9.29% 16.29% 83.1% 13.0 YES

Mineola 2‐1 5% 3.91% 8.91% 107.8% 0.0 YES

Mineral Wells 2‐1 5% 9.43% 14.43% 88.3% 19.0 YES

Mission 2‐1 6% 7.94% 13.94% 88.0% 28.0 YES

Missouri City 2‐1 7% 5.24% 12.24% 100.4% 0.0 YES

Monahans 2‐1 5% 9.42% 14.42% 83.3% 24.0 YES

Mont Belvieu 2‐1 6% 12.14% 18.14% 80.8% 29.0 YES

Montgomery 2‐1 7% 3.27% 10.27% 109.5% 0.0 YES

Moody 1‐1 5% 2.62% 7.62% 96.3% 5.0 YES

Morgan's Point 2‐1 7% 8.09% 15.09% 97.3% 30.0 YES

Morgan's Point Resort 2‐1 7% 9.69% 16.69% 88.9% 30.0 YES

Morton 2‐1 5% 8.79% 13.79% 98.5% 3.0 YES

Moulton 1‐1 6% 6.42% 12.42% 93.9% 20.0 YES

Mount Enterprise 1‐1 5% 2.49% 7.49% 97.3% 6.0 NO

Mt. Pleasant 2‐1 7% 15.98% 22.98% 78.3% 26.0 YES

Mt. Vernon 2‐1 7% 10.78% 17.78% 85.5% 27.0 YES

Muenster 2‐1 5% 1.22% 6.22% 119.1% 0.0 YES

Muleshoe 2‐1 7% 16.72% 23.72% 82.7% 21.0 YES

78

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Munday 1‐1 5% 3.51% 8.51% 48.4% 30.0 YES

Murphy 2‐1 7% 11.37% 18.37% 79.7% 30.0 NO

Nacogdoches 2‐1 7% 14.33% 21.33% 81.0% 24.0 YES

Naples 1.5‐1 5% 2.33% 7.33% 116.8% 0.0 YES

Nash 2‐1 7% 3.79% 10.79% 96.9% 8.2 YES

Nassau Bay 2‐1 7% 14.13% 21.13% 63.3% 30.0 YES

Natalia 1‐1 5% 2.77% 7.77% 80.1% 25.0 YES

Navasota 2‐1 5% 7.63% 12.63% 89.8% 16.0 YES

Nederland 2‐1 7% 6.16% 13.16% 103.5% 0.0 YES

Needville 1‐1 7% 4.44% 11.44% 99.4% 2.0 YES

New Boston 1‐1 5% 2.81% 7.81% 100.3% 0.0 YES

New Braunfels 2‐1 7% 16.95% 23.95% 71.6% 30.0 YES

New Braunfels Utilities 1.5‐1 7% 13.54% 20.54% 84.6% 16.0 YES

New Deal 1‐1 5% 1.13% 6.13% 112.4% 0.0 NO

New Fairview 1‐1 7% 5.05% 12.05% 50.1% 26.0 NO

New London 1‐1 5% 6.02% 11.02% 89.5% 13.0 YES

New Summerfield 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 172.7% 0.0 NO

New Waverly 1.5‐1 5% 3.74% 8.74% 98.0% 30.0 NO

Newton 2‐1 7% 22.10% 29.10% 66.7% 23.0 YES

Nixon 1‐1 5% 0.95% 5.95% 100.1% 0.0 YES

Nocona 2‐1 5% 10.05% 15.05% 77.0% 24.0 YES

Nolanville 1‐1 5% 1.51% 6.51% 44.6% 30.0 YES

Normangee 2‐1 5% 3.25% 8.25% 114.1% 0.0 YES

North Richland Hills 2‐1 7% 16.79% 23.79% 84.3% 24.0 NO

Northlake 2‐1 7% 7.40% 14.40% 89.4% 30.0 NO

Oak Point 2‐1 7% 6.02% 13.02% 84.9% 30.0 NO

Oak Ridge North 2‐1 7% 12.34% 19.34% 79.2% 30.0 NO

Odem 2‐1 6% 6.92% 12.92% 78.2% 30.0 YES

Odessa 2‐1 7% 14.01% 21.01% 84.6% 24.0 YES

O'Donnell 1‐1 5% 8.77% 13.77% 78.3% 13.0 YES

Oglesby 1‐1 5% 1.77% 6.77% 109.4% 0.0 NO

Old River‐Winfree 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 210.7% 0.0 NO

Olmos Park 2‐1 5% 1.37% 6.37% 110.8% 0.0 YES

Olney 2‐1 7% 5.32% 12.32% 87.5% 30.0 YES

Omaha 1‐1 5% 4.71% 9.71% 64.5% 19.0 YES

Onalaska 1.5‐1 5% 1.10% 6.10% 123.1% 0.0 YES

Orange 2‐1 7% 19.29% 26.29% 82.5% 25.0 YES

Orange Grove 1.5‐1 5% 1.62% 6.62% 115.2% 0.0 YES

Ore City 1‐1 5% 0.84% 5.84% 110.9% 0.0 YES

Overton 2‐1 5% 1.12% 6.12% 121.8% 0.0 YES

Ovilla 2‐1 7% 6.73% 13.73% 96.2% 30.0 NO

Oyster Creek 2‐1 7% 9.61% 16.61% 90.8% 25.0 YES

Paducah 1.5‐1 5% 2.59% 7.59% 105.0% 0.0 YES

79

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Palacios 2‐1 7% 17.17% 24.17% 65.1% 25.0 YES

Palestine 2‐1 6% 14.75% 20.75% 76.1% 30.0 YES

Palmer 2‐1 5% 6.58% 11.58% 88.8% 30.0 YES

Palmhurst 1‐1 5% 0.87% 5.87% 106.8% 0.0 NO

Palmview 1‐1 5% 2.04% 7.04% 64.7% 25.0 NO

Pampa 2‐1 7% 21.31% 28.31% 65.5% 23.0 YES

Panhandle 1‐1 5% 5.42% 10.42% 86.8% 30.0 YES

Panorama Village 2‐1 6% 5.88% 11.88% 101.1% 0.0 NO

Pantego 2‐1 7% 14.85% 21.85% 80.7% 30.0 YES

Paris 2‐1 6% 6.21% 12.21% 95.6% 9.0 YES

Parker 2‐1 6% 11.68% 17.68% 70.8% 22.0 NO

Pasadena 2‐1 7% 13.56% 20.56% 90.7% 18.0 YES

Pearland 2‐1 7% 13.41% 20.41% 79.7% 30.0 YES

Pearsall 1‐1 5% 3.43% 8.43% 93.5% 27.0 YES

Pecos City 2‐1 5% 5.34% 10.34% 101.2% 0.0 YES

Perryton 2‐1 7% 14.55% 21.55% 82.3% 17.0 YES

Pflugerville 2‐1 7% 13.31% 20.31% 76.1% 30.0 YES

Pharr 2‐1 7% 6.78% 13.78% 87.9% 20.0 YES

Pilot Point 2‐1 5% 8.46% 13.46% 86.1% 30.0 YES

Pinehurst 2‐1 7% 16.65% 23.65% 73.4% 30.0 YES

Pineland 1.5‐1 5% 11.82% 16.82% 89.6% 9.0 YES

Piney Point Village 2‐1 5% 5.67% 10.67% 99.6% 30.0 NO

Pittsburg 2‐1 7% 16.15% 23.15% 80.1% 19.0 YES

Plains 1.5‐1 7% 6.00% 13.00% 103.4% 0.0 YES

Plainview 2‐1 7% 14.88% 21.88% 85.6% 23.0 YES

Plano 2‐1 7% 18.11% 25.11% 83.7% 20.0 NO

Pleasanton 2‐1 7% 16.64% 23.64% 65.7% 28.0 YES

Point 1‐1 7% 6.62% 13.62% 77.1% 22.0 YES

Ponder 2‐1 5% 5.14% 10.14% 91.0% 25.0 YES

Port Aransas 2‐1 6% 12.36% 18.36% 69.5% 30.0 YES

Port Arthur 2‐1 5% 14.20% 19.20% 81.2% 20.0 YES

Port Isabel 1.5‐1 5% 3.90% 8.90% 95.9% 30.0 YES

Port Lavaca 1.5‐1 5% 5.90% 10.90% 87.3% 30.0 YES

Port Neches 2‐1 7% 11.84% 18.84% 93.0% 23.4 YES

Portland 2‐1 6% 14.37% 20.37% 70.5% 25.0 YES

Post 2‐1 5% 9.53% 14.53% 73.5% 18.0 YES

Poteet 1.5‐1 5% 1.16% 6.16% 120.3% 0.0 YES

Poth 1‐1 7% 3.12% 10.12% 83.3% 24.0 YES

Pottsboro 2‐1 7% 4.21% 11.21% 95.5% 30.0 YES

Premont 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 110.8% 0.0 YES

Presidio 1‐1 5% 0.57% 5.57% 112.0% 0.0 YES

Primera 1‐1 5% 0.20% 5.20% 115.5% 0.0 YES

Princeton 2‐1 7% 9.65% 16.65% 89.7% 30.0 YES

80

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Prosper 2‐1 7% 11.87% 18.87% 78.2% 30.0 YES

Quanah 1.5‐1 5% 11.38% 16.38% 85.6% 15.0 YES

Queen City 1‐1 5% 1.17% 6.17% 109.8% 0.0 YES

Quinlan 1‐1 5% 2.40% 7.40% 98.8% 30.0 YES

Quintana 1‐1 5% 1.34% 6.34% 102.0% 0.0 NO

Quitaque 1‐1 5% 4.46% 9.46% 83.6% 12.0 YES

Quitman 2‐1 5% 7.83% 12.83% 94.1% 13.0 YES

Ralls 1.5‐1 5% 7.53% 12.53% 90.7% 23.0 YES

Rancho Viejo 1.5‐1 7% 7.62% 14.62% 94.1% 10.0 YES

Ranger 2‐1 6% 8.44% 14.44% 91.6% 30.0 YES

Rankin 1‐1 5% 1.29% 6.29% 100.9% 0.0 YES

Ransom Canyon 1.5‐1 6% 14.44% 20.44% 50.7% 20.0 YES

Raymondville 2‐1 7% 1.10% 8.10% 110.0% 0.0 YES

Red Oak 2‐1 6% 4.77% 10.77% 88.9% 30.0 YES

Redwater 1‐1 7% 3.45% 10.45% 84.3% 25.0 NO

Refugio 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 135.6% 0.0 YES

Reklaw 1.5‐1 7% 17.61% 24.61% 75.5% 17.0 NO

Reno (Lamar County) 2‐1 5% 2.71% 7.71% 132.1% 0.0 NO

Reno (Parker County) 1.5‐1 5% 2.57% 7.57% 131.6% 0.0 YES

Rhome 2‐1 7% 4.41% 11.41% 99.7% 30.0 YES

Rice 1‐1 5% 0.97% 5.97% 124.2% 0.0 YES

Richardson 2‐1 7% 13.80% 20.80% 87.8% 17.0 YES

Richland Hills 2‐1 7% 17.70% 24.70% 84.0% 25.0 YES

Richland Springs 2‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 107.4% 0.0 YES

Richmond 2‐1 7% 13.99% 20.99% 85.3% 22.0 YES

Richwood 2‐1 5% 11.98% 16.98% 78.6% 26.0 YES

Riesel 1‐1 5% 5.30% 10.30% 50.1% 17.0 NO

Rio Grande City 1.5‐1 6% 8.17% 14.17% 69.3% 30.0 NO

Rio Vista 1‐1 7% 7.23% 14.23% 63.5% 26.0 YES

Rising Star 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 147.1% 0.0 YES

River Oaks 2‐1 7% 16.30% 23.30% 78.8% 23.0 YES

Roanoke 2‐1 7% 14.79% 21.79% 74.5% 30.0 YES

Robert Lee 1‐1 5% 5.58% 10.58% 60.0% 20.0 YES

Robinson 2‐1 7% 13.14% 20.14% 72.4% 30.0 YES

Robstown 1.5‐1 5% 6.22% 11.22% 88.1% 20.0 YES

Robstown Utility Systems 2‐1 5% 17.12% 22.12% 74.1% 21.0 YES

Roby 2‐1 7% 0.50% 7.50% 109.2% 0.0 YES

Rockdale 2‐1 5% 9.94% 14.94% 75.7% 30.0 YES

Rockport 2‐1 7% 15.91% 22.91% 81.0% 26.0 YES

Rocksprings 1‐1 7% 0.50% 7.50% 105.2% 0.0 YES

Rockwall 2‐1 7% 16.41% 23.41% 78.7% 30.0 YES

Rogers 1‐1 7% 4.93% 11.93% 80.7% 30.0 YES

Rollingwood 2‐1 6% 6.52% 12.52% 101.3% 0.0 YES

81

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Roma 2‐1 5% 10.95% 15.95% 78.0% 19.0 YES

Roscoe 1‐1 5% 1.53% 6.53% 101.9% 0.0 YES

Rosebud 1‐1 5% 1.28% 6.28% 109.2% 0.0 YES

Rosenberg 2‐1 6% 14.18% 20.18% 79.0% 26.0 YES

Rotan 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 136.9% 0.0 YES

Round Rock 2‐1 7% 15.45% 22.45% 78.3% 26.0 YES

Rowlett 2‐1 7% 13.06% 20.06% 86.8% 27.0 NO

Royse City 2‐1 7% 10.47% 17.47% 77.0% 30.0 YES

Rule 1.5‐1 7% 6.91% 13.91% 96.7% 4.0 YES

Runaway Bay 1.5‐1 5% 1.54% 6.54% 132.4% 0.0 YES

Runge 1‐1 7% 14.90% 21.90% 64.4% 16.0 YES

Rusk 1.5‐1 6% 4.86% 10.86% 102.0% 0.0 YES

Sabinal 2‐1 3% 2.82% 5.82% 101.2% 0.0 YES

Sachse 2‐1 7% 12.33% 19.33% 81.0% 30.0 YES

Saginaw 2‐1 6% 17.89% 23.89% 65.1% 25.0 YES

Saint Jo 1.5‐1 6% 3.80% 9.80% 101.2% 0.0 YES

Salado 2‐1 5% 5.73% 10.73% 94.9% 30.0 NO

San Angelo 2‐1 7% 17.70% 24.70% 78.2% 23.0 YES

San Antonio 2‐1 6% 10.54% 16.54% 86.9% 19.9 YES

San Antonio Water System 1‐1 3% 3.81% 6.81% 84.2% 24.0 YES

San Augustine 2‐1 7% 11.25% 18.25% 81.7% 22.0 YES

San Benito 2‐1 5% 5.11% 10.11% 85.6% 25.0 YES

San Felipe 1‐1 5% 4.64% 9.64% 76.5% 18.0 NO

San Juan 1.5‐1 6% 1.85% 7.85% 103.5% 0.0 YES

San Marcos 2‐1 7% 17.80% 24.80% 74.9% 23.0 YES

San Saba 1.5‐1 6% 8.11% 14.11% 83.3% 30.0 YES

Sanger 2‐1 6% 7.09% 13.09% 85.8% 30.0 YES

Sansom Park 1.5‐1 7% 3.72% 10.72% 105.7% 0.0 YES

Santa Fe 1.5‐1 7% 12.61% 19.61% 70.2% 26.0 YES

Savoy 1.5‐1 6% 1.74% 7.74% 142.0% 0.0 YES

Schertz 2‐1 7% 15.81% 22.81% 67.0% 30.0 YES

Schulenburg 2‐1 7% 20.86% 27.86% 79.3% 19.0 YES

Seabrook 2‐1 7% 14.02% 21.02% 86.3% 18.0 YES

Seadrift 1‐1 5% 3.78% 8.78% 75.8% 14.0 YES

Seagoville 2‐1 7% 9.71% 16.71% 88.2% 25.0 YES

Seagraves 2‐1 5% 11.04% 16.04% 78.7% 30.0 YES

Sealy 2‐1 7% 15.47% 22.47% 76.7% 30.0 YES

Seguin 2‐1 7% 11.08% 18.08% 82.7% 16.4 YES

Selma 2‐1 7% 14.00% 21.00% 79.2% 30.0 NO

Seminole 2‐1 7% 13.66% 20.66% 84.5% 23.0 NO

Seven Points 2‐1 7% 3.37% 10.37% 113.1% 0.0 NO

Seymour 1‐1 6% 7.63% 13.63% 84.1% 18.0 YES

Shady Shores 1‐1 5% 0.31% 5.31% 145.5% 0.0 YES

82

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Shallowater 1.5‐1 5% 2.79% 7.79% 102.9% 0.0 YES

Shamrock 1‐1 5% 8.71% 13.71% 71.6% 22.0 YES

Shavano Park 2‐1 7% 11.00% 18.00% 83.5% 30.0 NO

Shenandoah 2‐1 7% 15.48% 22.48% 63.1% 30.0 NO

Shepherd 1.5‐1 7% 2.18% 9.18% 133.1% 0.0 YES

Sherman 2‐1 7% 13.76% 20.76% 85.7% 23.0 YES

Shiner 1‐1 5% 7.40% 12.40% 85.9% 18.0 YES

Shoreacres 1.5‐1 5% 4.74% 9.74% 101.6% 0.0 YES

Silsbee 2‐1 7% 17.77% 24.77% 74.2% 26.0 YES

Silverton 1.5‐1 6% 4.65% 10.65% 101.9% 0.0 YES

Sinton 2‐1 7% 12.64% 19.64% 74.9% 30.0 YES

Skellytown 1‐1 7% 0.00% 7.00% 134.6% 0.0 NO

Slaton 2‐1 6% 6.59% 12.59% 97.9% 17.0 NO

Smithville 1.5‐1 5% 6.75% 11.75% 85.8% 22.0 YES

Smyer 2‐1 7% 7.37% 14.37% 93.2% 7.0 NO

Snyder 2‐1 7% 16.48% 23.48% 82.0% 26.0 YES

Somerset 1.5‐1 5% 2.59% 7.59% 98.6% 4.1 YES

Somerville 1.5‐1 5% 5.68% 10.68% 97.5% 11.0 YES

Sonora 2‐1 5% 8.67% 13.67% 86.8% 30.0 YES

Sour Lake 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 126.6% 0.0 YES

South Houston 2‐1 5% 11.88% 16.88% 84.9% 15.0 YES

South Padre Island 2‐1 7% 12.62% 19.62% 90.1% 30.0 NO

Southlake 2‐1 7% 12.05% 19.05% 84.5% 30.0 YES

Southside Place 2‐1 7% 11.53% 18.53% 81.2% 30.0 YES

Spearman 2‐1 7% 11.56% 18.56% 86.7% 30.0 YES

Spring Valley Village 2‐1 7% 6.58% 13.58% 96.8% 28.0 NO

Springtown 2‐1 7% 9.00% 16.00% 94.3% 30.0 NO

Spur 1‐1 5% 5.19% 10.19% 90.8% 10.0 YES

Stafford 2‐1 7% 14.91% 21.91% 84.7% 27.0 YES

Stamford 1.5‐1 5% 6.05% 11.05% 95.3% 30.0 YES

Stanton 1.5‐1 5% 7.89% 12.89% 88.3% 13.0 YES

Star Harbor 2‐1 5% 10.27% 15.27% 90.9% 21.0 YES

Stephenville 2‐1 6% 14.53% 20.53% 84.7% 21.0 YES

Sterling City 1‐1 5% 0.29% 5.29% 105.2% 0.0 YES

Stinnett 1.5‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 121.2% 0.0 YES

Stratford 1.5‐1 5% 7.19% 12.19% 79.2% 30.0 YES

Sudan 1‐1 5% 2.73% 7.73% 94.1% 8.3 YES

Sugar Land 2‐1 7% 15.11% 22.11% 83.8% 26.0 NO

Sulphur Springs 2‐1 6% 5.93% 11.93% 98.1% 6.1 YES

Sundown 2‐1 7% 10.01% 17.01% 87.2% 30.0 YES

Sunnyvale 2‐1 6% 11.64% 17.64% 76.5% 30.0 YES

Sunray 2‐1 7% 20.06% 27.06% 66.3% 23.0 YES

Sunrise Beach Village 1‐1 5% 1.21% 6.21% 103.8% 0.0 YES

83

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Sunset Valley 2‐1 7% 9.79% 16.79% 87.1% 30.0 NO

Surfside Beach 1‐1 5% 0.76% 5.76% 127.6% 0.0 NO

Sweeny 2‐1 7% 17.86% 24.86% 74.0% 26.0 YES

Sweetwater 2‐1 7% 19.19% 26.19% 75.0% 22.0 YES

Taft 2‐1 7% 11.27% 18.27% 72.1% 30.0 YES

Tahoka 2‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 120.4% 0.0 YES

Tatum 1‐1 5% 1.97% 6.97% 87.2% 25.0 YES

Taylor 1.5‐1 7% 12.56% 19.56% 75.2% 30.0 YES

Teague 2‐1 7% 11.26% 18.26% 83.1% 30.0 YES

Temple 2‐1 7% 16.73% 23.73% 80.1% 26.0 NO

Tenaha 1‐1 5% 0.60% 5.60% 113.2% 0.0 YES

Terrell 2‐1 7% 17.41% 24.41% 78.5% 26.0 YES

Terrell Hills 2‐1 6% 12.93% 18.93% 81.3% 30.0 YES

Tex Municipal League IEBP 2‐1 6% 3.93% 9.93% 100.2% 0.0 NO

Tex Municipal League IRP 2‐1 7% 13.02% 20.02% 94.0% 10.0 NO

Texarkana 2‐1 7% 15.70% 22.70% 81.8% 26.0 YES

Texarkana Police Dept 2‐1 7% 17.38% 24.38% 82.2% 30.0 YES

Texarkana Water Utilities 2‐1 7% 16.71% 23.71% 76.0% 22.0 YES

Texas City 2‐1 7% 17.59% 24.59% 80.1% 23.0 NO

Texas Municipal League 2‐1 6% 15.49% 21.49% 83.3% 22.0 NO

Texhoma 1‐1 5% 0.00% 5.00% 118.5% 0.0 NO

The Colony 2‐1 7% 12.48% 19.48% 86.4% 26.0 YES

Thompsons 1‐1 5% 2.87% 7.87% 87.5% 17.0 NO

Thorndale 1.5‐1 5% 6.84% 11.84% 94.9% 10.0 YES

Three Rivers 1‐1 5% 5.19% 10.19% 87.4% 16.0 YES

Throckmorton 1.5‐1 5% 6.44% 11.44% 94.4% 30.0 YES

Tiki Island 1‐1 6% 2.70% 8.70% 86.0% 20.0 YES

Timpson 1‐1 5% 2.51% 7.51% 96.1% 21.0 YES

Tioga 1‐1 5% 0.37% 5.37% 116.9% 0.0 YES

TMRS 2‐1 7% 16.76% 23.76% 77.8% 26.0 YES

Tolar 2‐1 7% 6.28% 13.28% 95.7% 30.0 NO

Tom Bean 1‐1 5% 2.04% 7.04% 94.4% 25.0 YES

Tomball 2‐1 7% 12.93% 19.93% 81.0% 30.0 YES

Trent 1.5‐1 7% 6.57% 13.57% 96.3% 4.0 NO

Trenton 1.5‐1 5% 3.19% 8.19% 102.9% 0.0 YES

Trinidad 1‐1 5% 4.01% 9.01% 81.4% 20.0 YES

Trinity 2‐1 5% 5.55% 10.55% 82.4% 30.0 YES

Trophy Club 2‐1 7% 15.56% 22.56% 74.1% 30.0 NO

Troup 1.5‐1 5% 4.08% 9.08% 87.9% 30.0 YES

Troy 1.5‐1 6% 5.92% 11.92% 88.2% 30.0 YES

Tulia 2‐1 6% 13.09% 19.09% 88.8% 19.0 YES

Turkey 1‐1 5% 5.64% 10.64% 75.6% 30.0 YES

Tye 1.5‐1 7% 6.14% 13.14% 75.4% 30.0 YES

84

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Tyler 2‐1 7% 21.09% 28.09% 70.9% 22.0 YES

Universal City 2‐1 7% 18.58% 25.58% 64.7% 27.0 YES

University Park 2‐1 7% 6.19% 13.19% 99.0% 7.0 YES

Uvalde 1.5‐1 5% 6.41% 11.41% 86.2% 28.0 YES

Van 2‐1 5% 2.36% 7.36% 115.4% 0.0 YES

Van Alstyne 2‐1 6% 8.88% 14.88% 81.2% 30.0 YES

Van Horn 1.5‐1 5% 8.58% 13.58% 82.3% 22.0 YES

Vega 2‐1 7% 22.71% 29.71% 78.0% 16.0 YES

Venus 2‐1 7% 8.99% 15.99% 90.9% 30.0 YES

Vernon 2‐1 7% 18.40% 25.40% 69.8% 23.0 YES

Victoria 2‐1 6% 17.24% 23.24% 74.3% 25.0 YES

Vidor 2‐1 7% 16.48% 23.48% 79.8% 22.0 YES

Village Fire Department 1.5‐1 7% 7.03% 14.03% 91.7% 13.0 NO

Volente 1.5‐1 6% 6.81% 12.81% 72.0% 30.0 YES

Waco 2‐1 7% 13.15% 20.15% 85.0% 18.5 YES

Waelder 1‐1 5% 1.84% 6.84% 98.7% 25.0 YES

Wake Village 2‐1 7% 11.72% 18.72% 80.0% 30.0 YES

Waller 1.5‐1 5% 4.25% 9.25% 97.5% 25.0 YES

Wallis 1‐1 6% 2.94% 8.94% 99.1% 30.0 YES

Walnut Springs 1‐1 5% 2.13% 7.13% 97.6% 6.0 YES

Waskom 1‐1 5% 6.04% 11.04% 78.5% 24.0 YES

Watauga 2‐1 7% 13.35% 20.35% 82.2% 27.0 NO

Waxahachie 2‐1 7% 15.77% 22.77% 76.1% 25.0 YES

Weatherford 2‐1 7% 13.62% 20.62% 84.1% 26.0 YES

Webster 2‐1 7% 17.00% 24.00% 79.7% 30.0 YES

Weimar 2‐1 7% 17.54% 24.54% 81.5% 16.0 YES

Wellington 2‐1 5% 0.98% 5.98% 105.7% 0.0 YES

Wells 1‐1 5% 4.29% 9.29% 94.1% 30.0 YES

Weslaco 2‐1 7% 6.24% 13.24% 93.7% 22.5 YES

West 1.5‐1 5% 2.64% 7.64% 104.2% 0.0 YES

West Columbia 2‐1 5% 2.62% 7.62% 111.2% 0.0 YES

West Lake Hills 2‐1 7% 13.30% 20.30% 82.2% 30.0 YES

West Orange 2‐1 7% 19.53% 26.53% 76.3% 24.0 YES

West Tawakoni 2‐1 5% 10.80% 15.80% 67.3% 20.0 NO

West Univ. Place 2‐1 7% 10.48% 17.48% 88.3% 30.0 YES

Westlake 2‐1 7% 9.26% 16.26% 82.4% 30.0 NO

Westover Hills 1‐1 5% 1.38% 6.38% 98.5% 30.0 YES

Westworth Village 2‐1 7% 8.47% 15.47% 83.5% 30.0 NO

Wharton 1.5‐1 5% 6.61% 11.61% 89.9% 26.0 YES

Wheeler 2‐1 5% 11.16% 16.16% 89.7% 26.0 YES

White Deer 1‐1 5% 6.78% 11.78% 72.2% 30.0 YES

White Oak 2‐1 7% 14.20% 21.20% 85.4% 30.0 YES

White Settlement 2‐1 5% 10.80% 15.80% 83.3% 27.0 YES

85

APPENDIX D‐2



Social

Security

Contribution Rate

Employer Name

Benefits/

Employer

Match1

Funded

Ratio

Amortization

Period (Years)

Whiteface 1.5‐1 5% 2.88% 7.88% 113.1% 0.0 YES

Whitehouse 1.5‐1 5% 4.99% 9.99% 94.6% 30.0 YES

Whitesboro 1.5‐1 5% 7.35% 12.35% 89.1% 17.0 YES

Whitewright 1.5‐1 5% 3.37% 8.37% 97.5% 30.0 YES

Whitney 1‐1 5% 3.85% 8.85% 88.1% 30.0 YES

Wichita Falls 2‐1 5% 12.52% 17.52% 80.2% 20.0 YES

Willis 2‐1 7% 8.76% 15.76% 84.0% 28.8 YES

Willow Park 1‐1 5% 2.04% 7.04% 82.2% 25.0 NO

Wills Point 2‐1 5% 11.14% 16.14% 80.0% 21.0 YES

Wilmer 2‐1 5% 2.33% 7.33% 107.9% 0.0 YES

Wimberley 1‐1 5% 2.08% 7.08% 96.6% 30.0 NO

Windcrest 1.5‐1 6% 6.57% 12.57% 92.5% 30.0 YES

Winfield 1‐1 5% 1.54% 6.54% 80.2% 30.0 YES

Wink 2‐1 7% 4.34% 11.34% 108.5% 0.0 YES

Winnsboro 1.5‐1 5% 7.97% 12.97% 84.1% 28.0 YES

Winona 2‐1 7% 10.82% 17.82% 79.7% 30.0 NO

Winters 2‐1 5% 9.54% 14.54% 91.7% 25.0 YES

Wolfforth 1.5‐1 5% 7.50% 12.50% 80.1% 27.0 YES

Woodcreek 1‐1 5% 2.97% 7.97% 104.9% 0.0 YES

Woodsboro 1‐1 5% 0.20% 5.20% 145.1% 0.0 YES

Woodville 2‐1 7% 15.66% 22.66% 79.8% 18.0 YES

Woodway 2‐1 7% 15.76% 22.76% 80.2% 19.0 NO

Wortham 2‐1 6% 4.13% 10.13% 118.3% 0.0 YES

Wylie 2‐1 7% 13.95% 20.95% 74.3% 30.0 YES

Yoakum 2‐1 6% 15.73% 21.73% 80.8% 22.0 YES

Yorktown 1‐1 5% 0.74% 5.74% 102.9% 0.0 YES

Zavalla 1‐1 7% 2.62% 9.62% 101.5% 0.0 NO

Unweighted Average 89.8% 18.6

Percentage of Plans Covered by Social Security 83.6%1 TMRS retirement benefit is account balance based. The annual amount credited to an employee's individual account is the

employee's contributions over the year. The individual account is credited with interest until withdrawal or retirement. At retirement,

the individual account balance is matched by the employer at the selected percentage and the sum is converted to an

annuity. For example, if a plan has a 5% employee contribution and a 200% match, the amount available to be

converted into an annuity is 15% of pay (5% employee plus 10% employer) plus interest.

86

APPENDIX D‐3

Cities in TMRS that Enacted Plan Changes in 2013

Employer Name Plan ChangesAddison Granted 70% ad hoc COLA.

Albany 1) Adopted 100% repeating USC with transfer.

2) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 1.5 ‐ 1.

3) Increased statutory max to 9.50% due to plan changes.

Argyle Removed statutory max.

Aubrey 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 1.5 ‐ 1.


Bandera Removed statutory max.

Bartlett 1) Added transfer provision to repeating USC.

2) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 7%.



Big Lake Increased employee contribution rate from 6% to 7%.

Bremond 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC.

2) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 7%.

3) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


Brenham 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.

2) Granted 70% ad hoc COLA.

Converse Removed statutory max.

Copperas Cove Removed statutory max.

Corinth Removed statutory max.

Corpus Christi 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC.


Cotulla 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


Crockett Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Crystal City 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 7%.


Dilley 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


Double Oak Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.

El Campo Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 6%.

Fairview Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Franklin 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


Fredericksburg 1) Adopted 50% repeating COLA.

2) Adopted 50% repeating USC with transfer.

3) Adopted supplemental death benefits for actives and retirees.

Fulshear 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.


Ganado Removed statutory max.

Gonzales 1) Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

87

APPENDIX D‐3


Employer Name Plan Changes 2) Adopted 5 year vesting.

Graham Regional Med Cntr 1) Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

2) Granted 75% ad hoc USC.

3) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1.5 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


5) Moved to inactive status in TMRS.

Hawkins Adopted buy‐back provision.

Hearne Removed statutory max.

Hidalgo Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Hitchcock 1) Granted 50% ad hoc USC with transfer.



Holliday Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Huntsville 1) Adopted 50% repeating COLA.

2) Decreased repeating USC from 100% to 50%.

Hurst Granted 30% ad hoc COLA.

Huxley 1) Granted 30% ad hoc COLA.

2) Granted 50% ad hoc USC.



Irving Granted 50% ad hoc COLA.

Jones Creek Adopted restricted prior service credit.

Kemah Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Killeen Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.

Krugerville 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 7%.


La Grange Increased repeating COLA from 30% to 50%.

Lakeside 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 6%.


Leander Decreased repeating COLA from 70% to 50%.

Levelland 1) Adopted buy‐back provision.

2) Adopted restricted prior service credit.

Manvel Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Meadows Place 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC.


Mesquite 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.


Missouri City 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.


Mont Belvieu 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 6%.


Nash 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 7%.


88

APPENDIX D‐3


Employer Name Plan ChangesOnalaska 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 1.5 ‐ 1.


Pantego Decreased repeating COLA from 70% to 50%.

Point 1) Adopted 100% repeating USC with transfer.

2) Adopted 50% repeating COLA.

Port Aransas 1) Increased employee contribution rate from 5% to 6%.


Port Arthur/Port Arthur PIC Creation of composite participation date.

Port Neches Granted 30% ad hoc COLA.

Ransom Canyon Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 1.5 ‐ 1.

Rice Adopted 20 yr, any age retirement eligibility.

Richwood Removed statutory max.

Roanoke Removed statutory max.

Rockport Removed statutory max.

San Antonio Granted 70% ad hoc COLA.

Seabrook Decreased repeating COLA from 70% to 30%.

Seguin 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.


Spur Granted 70% ad hoc COLA.

Sudan 1) Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.


Sulphur Springs Granted 100% ad hoc USC with transfer.

TMRS Adopted buy‐back provision.

Tex Municipal League IEBP Granted 100% ad hoc USC.

Trinity 1) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.


Universal City Increased employee contribution rate from 6% to 7%.

Waco Granted 50% ad hoc COLA.

Weatherford Decreased repeating COLA from 70% to 50%.

Weslaco 1) Granted 30% ad hoc COLA.

2) Granted 50% ad hoc USC with transfer.

3) Increased municipal matching ratio from 1.5 ‐ 1 to 2 ‐ 1.

West Columbia Adopted restricted prior service credit.

89

APPENDIX D‐4 Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) Additional Information1

Funded Ratios

1. The table below shows the total number of TMRS plans within each funded ratio range.

Funded Ratios

Funded Ratio Range Number of Plans Percent of Total

120% or more 53 6%









Less than 40% 4 <1%

Total 844 100%

Percent of ARC Funded

2. The table below shows the average percent of ARC funded by employers in TMRS based on the system’s current amortization period.

Average Percent of TMRS Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Made by Employers (Cities)2

Amortization Period (Years) Average %

Infinite (Never) N/A

At least 40 but less than infinite N/A




Zero (None) 113%

1 Information is based on the 12/31/2013 actuarial valuation unless otherwise noted. 2 ARC information is based on actual FY 2014 contributions by plan sponsors.

90

Contribution Rates

3. The table below shows the number of TMRS plans within total contribution rate (employer and employee rate) ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employees and Employers

Total (Employee + Employer) Contribution Rates Number of Plans Percent of Total

At least 30% but less than 35% 1 <1%






Less than 5% 0 0%

Total 844 100%

4. The table below shows the number of TMRS plans within employer contribution rate ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employers

Employer Contribution Rates Number of Plans Percent of Total

At least 25% but less than 30% 1 <1%





Less than 5% 290 34%

Total 844 100%

5. The table below shows the number of TMRS plans within employee contribution rate ranges.

Total Contribution Rates of Employees

Employee Contribution Rates Number of Plans Percent of Total

Equal to 7% 368 44%

Equal to 6% 102 12%

Equal to 5% 371 44%

Equal to 4% 0 0%

Equal to 3% 3 <1%

Total 844 100%

91

APPENDIX E

Contribution Information for Public Retirement Systems

Plan Name / Plan Tiers

Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution

Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution

Employees Retirement System of Texas1 Infinite 8.00% 6.90% 14.90% 0 6.00% 6.00% 12.00%

Law Enforcement and Custodial Officer Sup. Ret. Fund2 Infinite 1.70% 0.50% 2.20% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two3 Infinite 15.66% 6.90% 22.53% 0 16.83% 6.00% 22.83%

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System4Infinite Varies N/A Varies 0 Varies N/A Varies

Galveston Employees Retirement Fund Infinite 9.00% 6.00% 15.00% 0 5.00% 4.75% 9.75%

Harlingen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 26 11.00% 11.00% 22.00%

Greenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite 15.30% 15.30% 30.60% 29.6 13.20% 13.20% 26.40%

Atlanta Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund Infinite 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 3 9.00% 9.00% 18.00%

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Infinite 16.36% 15.00% 31.36% 29.5 12.75% 13.00% 25.75%

Lufkin Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 89.6 23.00% 13.20% 36.20% 25.7 11.00% 11.00% 22.00%

Orange Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 82.3 14.00% 11.00% 25.00% 27 9.00% 9.00% 18.00%

University Park Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 81.3 15.93% 15.38% 31.31% 30.4 14.00% 10.00% 24.00%

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 70.3 16.00% 16.00% 32.00% 29 15.00% 15.00% 30.00%

Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund5 63.4 15.00% 12.00% 27.00% 30.9 13.02% 10.00% 23.02%

Longview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 63.3 16.00% 15.00% 31.00% 71.6 14.00% 13.00% 27.00%

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 63.2 12.95% 12.00% 24.95% 16.9 9.00% 11.00% 20.00%

Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 59.1 21.70% 13.20% 34.90% 30 16.00% 13.20% 29.20%

Galveston Employees Pension Plan for Police 53.5 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 13 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%

Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund 51 13.02% 13.06% 26.08% Infinite 10.06% 5.94% 16.00%

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund 50.2 14.00% 16.00% 30.00% 22 13.50% 10.00% 23.50%

Beaumont Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 49.6 15.00% 15.00% 30.00% 15 13.00% 13.00% 26.00%

Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund 49.3 19.98% 8.41% 28.39% 17 10.95% 8.39% 19.34%

• FtWERF ‐ Muni. Employees hired before 7/1/2011 49.3 19.74% 8.25% 27.99% 17 10.18% 8.25% 18.43%

• FtWERF ‐ Muni. Employees hired on or after 7/1/2011 49.3 19.74% 8.25% 27.99% 17 10.18% 8.25% 18.43%

• FtWERF ‐ Police hired before 10/1/2013 49.3 20.46% 8.73% 29.19% 17 11.46% 8.73% 20.19%

• FtWERF ‐ Police hired on or after 10/1/2013 49.3 20.46% 8.73% 29.19% 17 11.46% 8.73% 20.19%

• FtWERF ‐ Firefighters 49.3 19.74% 8.25% 27.99% 17 10.18% 8.25% 18.43%

McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 43.9 13.25% 11.00% 24.25% 26.6 11.00% 10.00% 21.00%

Amarillo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 41 18.83% 13.00% 31.83% 0 13.00% 10.00% 23.00%

San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 40.9 20.28% 14.20% 34.48% 25 18.00% 13.20% 31.20%

Marshall Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 38.6 19.05% 14.00% 33.05% 55.9 14.00% 12.00% 26.00%

Earlier Contribution Rates (circa 2000)Current Contribution Rates

92

APPENDIX E



Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution

Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution


Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund 37.4 15.00% 13.24% 28.24% 28 10.62% 10.00% 20.62%

Killeen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 36.1 13.00% 10.00% 23.00% 39 9.00% 9.00% 18.00%

Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund6 35.2 21.45% 14.00% 35.45% 24.5 13.00% 13.00% 26.00%

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System 35 23.20% 3.12% 26.32% 22.5 9.55% 1.97% 11.52%

• HMEPS: Group A 35 23.20% 5.00% 28.20% 22.5 9.55% 4.00% 13.55%

• HMEPS: Group B 35 23.20% 0.00% 23.20% 22.5 9.55% 0.00% 9.55%

• HMEPS: Group D 35 23.20% 0.00% 23.20% 22.5 N/A N/A N/A

Cleburne Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 34.1 23.50% 13.00% 36.50% 30 13.96% 10.00% 23.96%

Texas City Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 33.6 16.00% 16.00% 32.00% 30 11.00% 13.00% 24.00%

Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 33.5 19.25% 13.20% 32.45% 31.04 13.50% 10.50% 24.00%

El Paso Police Pension Fund 32 18.50% 13.89% 32.39% Infinite 18.00% 10.11% 28.11%

Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 31.8 20.00% 8.00% 28.00% Infinite 9.00% 11.00% 20.00%

Temple Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 30.8 14.93% 14.69% 29.62% 29.9 13.65% 14.00% 27.65%

Big Spring Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 30.8 12.00% 13.00% 25.00% 18.81 11.00% 11.00% 22.00%

DART Employees' Defined Benefit Retirement Plan7 30 46.93% 0.01% 46.94% 0 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%

Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund 30 23.90% 9.00% 32.90% 0 15.40% 7.70% 23.10%

Colorado River Municipal Water Dist. Pension Trust 30 17.47% 0.00% 17.47% 30 12.30% 0.00% 12.30%

Galveston Wharves Pension Plan7 30 11.43% 0.00% 11.43% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Dallas Co. Hospital Dist. Retirement Income Plan 30 4.39% 4.50% 8.89% 30 2.89% 4.50% 7.39%

University Health System Pension Plan 30 6.55% 2.00% 8.55% 40 3.89% 2.00% 5.89%

Cypress‐Fairbanks ISD Pension Plan 30 8.15% 0.00% 8.15% 30 7.31% 0.00% 7.31%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One8 30 N/A N/A N/A 40 0.00% 6.00% 6.00%

Laredo Firefighters Retirement System 29.8 20.10% 15.00% 35.10% 30 12.57% 14.00% 26.57%

Teacher Retirement System of Texas9 29.8 6.80% 6.70% 13.50% 0 6.00% 6.40% 12.40%

Paris Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund 29.2 12.00% 15.00% 27.00% 28.7 10.00% 9.00% 19.00%

Houston MTA Non‐Union Pension Plan 29 19.75% 0.00% 19.75% 30 8.32% 0.00% 8.32%

Houston MTA Workers Union Pension Plan7 29 12.68% 0.00% 12.68% 30 7.04% 0.00% 7.04%

Austin Police Officers' Retirement Fund 28.9 21.63% 13.00% 34.63% 18.8 18.00% 9.00% 27.00%

Corsicana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 28.6 14.00% 14.00% 28.00% 31 10.00% 11.00% 21.00%

San Antonio Metro. Transit Retirement Plan (VIA) 28 15.24% 5.03% 20.27% 0 2.32% 3.67% 5.99%

Nacogdoches County Hosp. District Retirement Plan 27.8 6.03% 3.81% 9.84% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

93

APPENDIX E



Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution

Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution


• NCHDRP: YCS < 5 years 27.8 6.03% 3.00% 9.03% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

• NCHDRP: 5 ‐ 9.999 YCS 27.8 6.03% 3.50% 9.53% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

• NCHDRP: 10 ‐ 14.999 YCS 27.8 6.03% 4.00% 10.03% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

• NCHDRP: 15 ‐19.999 YCS 27.8 6.03% 4.50% 10.53% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

• NCHDRP: 20 ‐ 33.333 YCS 27.8 6.03% 5.00% 11.03% 15.3 4.18% 2.00% 6.18%

Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan 27.2 1.49% 2.50% 3.99% 0 0.00% 2.50% 2.50%

Weslaco Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 26.8 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 25 9.00% 9.00% 18.00%

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters' Retirement System 26.7 20.78% 12.20% 32.98% 30 12.00% 10.00% 22.00%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Combined Plan 26 27.50% 8.50% 36.00% 16 27.50% 8.50% 36.00%

• DPFPS: Plan A ‐ Hired before 3/1/1973 26 29.50% 6.50% 36.00% 16 27.50% 6.50% 34.00%

• DPFPS: Plan B ‐ Hired on or after 3/1/1973 26 27.50% 8.50% 36.00% 16 27.50% 8.50% 36.00%

Austin Employees' Retirement Fund 26 18.00% 8.00% 26.00% 0 8.00% 8.00% 16.00%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Bargaining Units10 25 N/A 0.00% N/A 30 4.30% 4.30% 8.60%

Lubbock Fire Pension Fund 24.3 22.63% 12.43% 35.06% 0 15.00% 11.00% 26.00%

Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 24 17.00% 12.60% 29.60% 30 10.00% 12.00% 22.00%

Denison Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 23.9 15.00% 12.00% 27.00% 23.7 12.00% 10.00% 22.00%

Houston Police Officers Pension System 23 28.29% 9.37% 37.66% 0 12.22% 8.79% 21.01%

• HPOPS ‐ Sworn (hired) prior to 10/9/2004 23 28.29% 9.00% 37.29% 0 12.22% 8.79% 21.01%

• HPOPS ‐ Sworn (hired) on or after 10/9/2004 23 28.29% 10.25% 38.54% 0 N/A N/A N/A

El Paso Firemen's Pension Fund 23 18.50% 15.28% 33.78% Infinite 18.00% 12.99% 30.99%

Lower Colorado River Auth. Retirement Plan and Trust7 23 23.93% 0.00% 23.93% 30 9.48% 0.18% 9.66%

Plano Retirement Security Plan 23 3.28% 0.00% 3.28% 0 2.52% 0.00% 2.52%

Tyler Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 22.9 19.50% 13.50% 33.00% 33 11.50% 11.00% 22.50%

Port Arthur Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 22.5 14.92% 13.00% 27.92% 20 12.66% 10.00% 22.66%

Texas Municipal Retirement System1121.9 13.25% 6.61% 19.86% 30 12.15% 6.54% 18.69%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board Retirement Plan 21 32.38% 0.00% 32.38% 0 10.40% 0.00% 10.40%

Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport Board DPS Retirement Plan 21 27.98% 7.00% 34.98% 18 10.40% 7.00% 17.40%

City Public Service of San Antonio Pension Plan 20 15.77% 5.00% 20.77% 0 3.70% 5.00% 8.70%

Harris County Hospital District Pension Plan7 20 14.85% 0.00% 14.85% 0 2.11% 0.00% 2.11%

Capital Metro Retirement Plan for Admin Employees 20 8.91% 0.00% 8.91% 0 N/A N/A N/A

Waxahachie Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 19.8 16.86% 12.00% 28.86% 15.7 11.50% 12.00% 23.50%

94

APPENDIX E



Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution

Amortization

Period

Employer

Contribution

Employee

Contribution

Total

Contribution


Texarkana Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 19.6 19.50% 13.50% 33.00% 35 13.00% 11.00% 24.00%

Brazos River Authority Retirement Plan7 18 6.86% 0.00% 6.86% 0 3.64% 0.00% 3.64%

El Paso City Employees' Pension Fund 17 12.85% 8.35% 21.20% 21 10.25% 6.75% 17.00%

Physicians Referral Service Retirement Benefit Plan 15 11.34% 0.00% 11.34% 12.7 2.92% 0.00% 2.92%

San Benito Firemen's Pension Fund 14.8 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 22 9.00% 9.00% 18.00%

Refugio Co. Memorial Hosp. Dist. Retirement Plan7 13.6 6.96% 0.00% 6.96% 12.1 1.27% 0.00% 1.27%

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority 11 13.23% 0.00% 13.23% Infinite 2.38% 0.00% 2.38%

Texas County & District Retirement System1110.8 12.20% 6.95% 19.15% 8.4 9.19% 6.80% 15.99%

Austin Fire Fighters Relief and Retirement Fund 10.5 22.05% 17.58% 39.63% 27 18.05% 13.70% 31.75%

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System‐Supp12 10 N/A 8.50% N/A 5 N/A 8.50% N/A

Northeast Medical Center Hospital Retirement Plan13 10 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A

Guadalupe‐Blanco River Authority7 9.6 12.00% 0.00% 12.00% 30 7.82% 0.00% 7.82%

Northwest Texas Healthcare System Retirement Plan13 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 7.6 N/A N/A N/A

Travis Cty ESD #6 Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 7.3 19.20% 19.60% 38.80% 0 N/A N/A N/A

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund 7.3 24.64% 12.32% 36.96% 9.3 24.64% 12.32% 36.96%

Port of Houston Authority Retirement Plan7 4 29.30% 0.00% 29.30% 4 12.17% 0.00% 12.17%

Arlington Employees Deferred Income Plan 0 0.80% 3.00% 3.80% 0 3.00% 3.00% 6.00%

Notes

[6] Employer contribution is scheduled to increase to 23.07% for calendar year 2015 and 24.68% for all subsequent years.

[7] Closed or frozen plan.

[8] Pay‐as‐you‐go plan, therefore contributions are not expressed as a percent of payroll. The plan's most recently reported contribution amount (from FY 2013) was $25,578,389.

[10] Frozen Plan with no attributed payroll; FY 2013 contributions were $3,763,370.

[12] Employer contribution is not reported as a percent of payroll.

[13] Plan is frozen and does not report payroll data.

[11] The members' contribution rate is set by plan sponsor with a weighted average calculated by the PRB. Employer contribution reflects weighted average.

[1] Employer contribution represents state contribution at 7.50% and state agency contribution of 0.50%. Employee contribution is scheduled to increase to 7.20% for FY 2016 and 7.50% for all subsequent

years.

[9] In FY 2015, school districts not participating in Social Security began contributing 1.50% of payroll. In combination with 6.80% from the state, estimated employer rate is expected to be 7.76% of payroll.

Employee contribution is scheduled to increase to 7.20% for FY 2016 and 7.70% for all subsequent years.

[2] Employer contribution represents state contribution at 0.50% and court fee contributions equivalent to 1.20%. Rates are in addition to rates paid for ERS.

[3] Employee contributions may cease after 20 years or Rule of 70 with 12 years on Appellate Court. The aggregate employee contribution rate is 6.87%. Employee contribution is scheduled to increase to

7.20% for FY 2016 and 7.50% for all subsequent years.

[4] TESRS contributions are comprised of two parts paid by local municipalities. Part one varies with a minimum contribution of $36 per member, per month. Part two does not affect annuities and is adjusted

by the state board based on the most recent actuarial valuation, effective for the following two state fiscal years. Members are volunteers and the covered group does not have a payroll.

[5] Employer contribution is scheduled to increase to 15.65% for calendar year 2015.

95

APPENDIX F Historical Analysis of Public Retirement Systems

The PRB conducted a review of historical information of Texas public retirement systems, including

actuarial, financial, contribution, benefit, and demographic data.1

Actuarial Information

1. The table below shows the number of systems within each funded ratio range in 2000 and 2013.

Funded Ratios

Funded Ratio Range 2000 2013

120% or more 3 0

At least 110% but less than 120% 6 1








Less than 40%2 3 4

2. The table below shows the prior amortization periods of all public retirement systems.

Prior Actuarial Valuation Amortization Periods







Zero (None) 1 1%

Total 93 100%

3. The following table shows the average additional contributions required to reach the designated

amortization period, based on the most current contribution rates, for each system with an

amortization period greater than 30 years.

Additional Contributions Required to Reach Designated Amortization Period

40-year Amortization



Average Additional Cont. Required 1.58% 3.45% 5.04%

1 Current amortization periods are as of December 1, 2014. 2 Two of the systems were newly formed.

96

Financial Information

1. The following table summarizes the average one, three and ten year gross and net rates of

return3 for all statewide, municipal, TLFFRA and Chapter 810 systems.

Investment Rates of Return by Plan Type

Plan Type 1 Year Gross

1 Year Net

3 Year Gross

3 Year Net

10 Year Gross

10 Year Net

Avg. Assumed Rate

Statewide 12.52% 12.28% 10.00% 9.78% 7.25% 7.10% 7.82%

Municipal 13.12% 12.57% 8.98% 8.44% 7.79% 7.16% 7.98%

TLFFRA 14.75% 13.97% 8.91% 8.03% 7.08% 6.26% 7.78%

Chapter 810 15.02% 13.99% 9.77% 8.95% 6.61% 5.98% 7.24%

2. The following table summarizes average annual non-investment cash flow as a percent of

current total net assets since 2007 and indicates the number of systems with cash flows within

certain ranges (e.g. -4% to -5% and less than -5%).

Aggregated Average Non-Investment Cash Flows (since 2007)

Amortization Period

Average Cash Flow

Number of Systems -4% to -5%

Number of Systems Less Than -5%

Infinite (Never) -2.43% 3 0

At least 40 but less than infinite

-2.51% 1 2

At least 25 but less than 40 0.15% 2 1



Total -0.43% 6 3

3 Rates of return are based on return information provided by retirement systems on form PRB-1000. For systems that have not reported rate

of return information to the PRB, rates of return are calculated based on the internal rate of return formula. Gross return: 2*(Investment Income)/(Beginning of Year Assets + End of Year Assets)-(Investment Income). Net return: 2*(Investment Income – Total Expenses)/(Beginning of Year Assets + End of Year Assets)-(Investment Income – Total Expenses).

97

Benefit Plan Provision Information

1. The following table indicates the percentage of systems, based on the systems’ current

amortization period, that provided certain benefit changes, including an ad-hoc or repeating

cost of living adjustment (COLA), a deferred retirement option program (DROP) or an increase to

the benefit multiplier between 1995 and 2013.

Benefit Plan Provisions

Amortization Period (Years) COLA DROP Multiplier increase after 1995

All Plans 52.69% 50.54% 49.46%

Infinite (Never) 22.22% 44.44% 44.44%

At least 40 but less than infinite 81.25% 87.50% 68.75%




Contribution Information4

1. The tables below compare the number of systems within total contribution rate (employer and employee rate) ranges in 2000 and 2013/2014.

Total Contributions (circa 2000)

(Employee + Employer) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 1 1%

30% to 34.99% 5 7%

25% to 29.99% 12 16%

20% to 24.99% 26 35%

15% to 19.99% 12 16%

10% to 14.99% 6 8%

5% to 9.99% 9 12%

Less than 5% 3 4%

Total 74 100%

Average: 19.51%

Total Contributions (2013 - 2014)

(Employee + Employer) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 9 12%

30% to 34.99% 22 30%

25% to 29.99% 17 23%

20% to 24.99% 12 15%

15% to 19.99% 5 7%

10% to 14.99% 3 4%

5% to 9.99% 5 7%

Less than 5% 2 3%

Total 74 100%

Average: 26.27%

4 Contribution information is not included for closed, frozen or supplemental retirement systems.

98

2. The tables below compare the number of systems within employer contribution rate ranges in

2000 and 2013/2014.

Employer Contributions (circa 2000)

(Employer) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 0 0%

30% to 34.99% 0 0%

25% to 29.99% 0 0%

20% to 24.99% 2 3%

15% to 19.99% 10 14%

10% to 14.99% 38 51%

5% to 9.99% 15 20%

Less than 5% 9 12%

Total 74 100%

Average: 10.98%

Employer Contributions (2013 - 2014)

(Employer) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 0 0%

30% to 34.99% 1 1%

25% to 29.99% 3 4%

20% to 24.99% 14 19%

15% to 19.99% 26 35%

10% to 14.99% 21 28%

5% to 9.99% 6 8%

Less than 5% 3 4%

Total 74 100%

Average: 16.12%

3. The tables below compare the number of systems within employee contribution rate ranges in 2000 and 2013/2014.

Employee Contributions (circa 2000)

(Employee) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 0 0%

30% to 34.99% 0 0%

25% to 29.99% 0 0%

20% to 24.99% 0 0%

15% to 19.99% 1 1%

10% to 14.99% 39 53%

5% to 9.99% 19 26%

Less than 5% 15 20%

Total 74 100%

Average: 8.53%

Employee Contributions (2013 - 2014)

(Employee) Contribution Rates

Number of Plans

Percent of Total

35% or Greater 0 0%

30% to 34.99% 0 0%

25% to 29.99% 0 0%

20% to 24.99% 0 0%

15% to 19.99% 13 18%

10% to 14.99% 33 45%

5% to 9.99% 15 20%

Less than 5% 13 18%

Total 74 100%

Average: 10.25%

99

Demographic Information

1. The table below shows the comparison of active to retired ratios for systems between 2000 and

2013 based on the systems’ current amortization period.

Active to Retired Ratios

Current Amortization Period 2000 2013

Infinite (Never) 5.46 1.82

At least 40 but less than infinite 1.94 1.34

At least 25 but less than 40 3.76 2.24



2. The table below compares the active to retired ratios between 2000 and 2013 for civilian, public

safety and combined systems.

Active to Retired Ratios

Plan Type 2000 2013

All Systems 3.67 1.99

Civilian 5.39 2.47

Public Safety 2.65 1.70

Combined 3.47 1.90

3. The table below compares the active to retired ratios for civilian systems between 2000 and

2013 based on the systems’ current amortization period.

Civilian Active to Retired Ratios







100

4. The following table compares the active to retired ratios for public safety systems between 2000

and 2013 based on the systems’ current amortization period.

Public Safety Active to Retired Ratios







5. The following table compares the active to retired ratios for combined civilian and public safety

systems between 2000 and 2013 based on the systems’ current amortization period.

Combined Active to Retired Ratios




At least 25 but less than 40 - -



101

APPENDIX G

Correlation Analysis of Public Retirement System Data

Correlation analysis is used to show dependence between two variables. The closer the coefficient of

the variables is to -1 or 1, the stronger the correlation is between the two. A positive correlation

indicates that the two variables are changing in the same direction, i.e. as one variable increases the

other is also likely to increase. Negative correlation shows that they move in opposite directions of one

another.

Amortization Period

Based on the results, the strongest correlation to a retirement system’s amortization period is the

percent of ARC funded. Retirement systems with the smallest amortization periods received a high

percentage of ARC payments. Additionally, the average annual non-investment cash flow as a percent of

total net assets showed little correlation to a retirement system’s amortization period. The difference

between the retirement system’s ten year net rate of return and the assumed rate of return showed

almost no correlation to the retirement system’s amortization period. The following table shows the

correlation results of this analysis.

Correlation to Amortization Period

Measurement Correlation

2007 – Current % of ARC Funded -0.229

Average Annual Noninvestment Cash Flow -0.121

Difference of 10 Year Net Return and Assumed Return 0.010

Asset to Liability Growth

The PRB also analyzed factors impacting a retirement system’s asset to liability growth. The strongest

correlation to a retirement system’s asset to liability growth is average annual non-investment cash

flow. Additionally, the difference between the retirement system’s ten year net rate of return and the

assumed rate of return, and percent of ARC funded showed some positive correlation to a retirement

system’s asset to liability growth. The following table shows the correlation results of this regression

analysis.

Correlation to Asset to Liability Growth Ratio

Measurement Correlation

Average Annual Noninvestment Cash Flow 0.532

Difference of 10 Year Net Return and Assumed Return 0.299

2007 – Current % of ARC Funded 0.210

102

APPENDIX H

Projected Additional Contributions Necessary to Achieve 25, 30, and 40 Year Amortization Periods

As of December 2014

Plan Name Date

Am

Period UAAL

Funded

Ratio Covered Payroll

Employee

Contribution

Rate

Employer

Contribution

Rate

Total

Contribution

Rate

Total

30‐year

Rate

Projected

30‐year

Rate

Shortfall

Projected

30‐year Dollar

Shortfall

Amount

Projected

25‐year

Rate

Shortfall

Projected

25‐year Dollar

Shortfall

Amount

Projected

40‐year

Rate

Shortfall

Projected

40‐year Dollar

Shortfall

Amount

Employees Retirement System of Texas 1&2 8/31/2014 Infinite $7,492,814,715 77.24% $6,171,443,191 6.90% 8.00% 14.90% 18.76% ‐3.86% ($238,217,707) ‐4.70% ($290,061,791) ‐3.10% ($191,508,445)

Law Enforcement & Custodial Officer Supplemental 1 8/31/2014 Infinite $323,174,989 73.22% $1,609,490,560 0.50% 1.70% 2.20% 2.96% ‐0.76% ($12,232,128) ‐0.90% ($14,473,033) ‐0.63% ($10,213,171)

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two 1&2 8/31/2014 Infinite $37,855,797 90.20% $79,122,500 6.57% 15.66% 22.23% 24.08% ‐1.85% ($1,463,766) ‐2.22% ($1,752,596) ‐1.52% ($1,203,543)

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System3 8/31/2012 Infinite $33,868,555 66.75% NA NA NA NA NA NA ($880,285) NA ($1,075,398) NA ($678,352)

Galveston Employees' Retirement Fund 1/1/2014 Infinite $9,891,454 81.40% $18,488,278 6.00% 9.00% 15.00% 17.03% ‐2.03% ($375,312) ‐2.31% ($427,920) ‐1.74% ($321,447)

Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund4 1/1/2013 Infinite $44,828,726 48.82% $9,518,672 15.00% 15.15% 30.15% 45.70% ‐15.55% ($1,480,153) ‐18.64% ($1,774,279) ‐11.86% ($1,128,848)

Harlingen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2011 Infinite $11,953,301 65.07% $4,925,968 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 31.51% ‐7.51% ($369,940) ‐8.96% ($441,532) ‐5.79% ($284,981)

Greenville Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 Infinite $13,516,305 47.44% $3,576,528 15.30% 15.30% 30.60% 33.87% ‐3.27% ($116,952) ‐5.27% ($188,522) ‐0.89% ($32,000)

Atlanta Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 Infinite $1,104,539 72.98% $569,671 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 28.63% ‐4.63% ($26,376) ‐5.87% ($33,467) ‐3.13% ($17,815)

Lufkin Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 89.6 $17,762,521 38.81% $4,321,795 13.20% 23.00% 36.20% 41.49% ‐5.29% ($228,623) ‐7.54% ($326,003) ‐2.74% ($118,276)

Orange Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 82.3 $6,544,945 57.25% $1,996,008 11.00% 14.00% 25.00% 30.61% ‐5.61% ($111,976) ‐7.73% ($154,286) ‐3.09% ($61,766)

University Park Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 81.3 $10,776,761 44.26% $2,874,862 15.38% 15.93% 31.31% 36.30% ‐4.99% ($143,456) ‐7.13% ($205,057) ‐2.45% ($70,352)

Sweetwater Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund5 12/31/2012 70.3 $3,163,694 69.52% $1,264,151 15.00% 15.00% 30.00% 36.11% ‐6.11% ($77,240) ‐7.77% ($98,169) ‐4.12% ($52,099)

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund6 1/1/2014 63.4 $57,502,156 73.10% $25,482,413 12.00% 15.00% 27.00% 30.75% ‐3.75% ($955,590) ‐5.10% ($1,299,921) ‐2.15% ($546,869)

Longview Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2013 63.3 $36,075,623 56.22% $10,690,633 15.00% 16.00% 31.00% 35.20% ‐4.20% ($449,007) ‐6.08% ($649,775) ‐2.03% ($217,503)

Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 63.2 $24,641,489 63.00% $8,962,581 12.00% 12.95% 24.95% 29.38% ‐4.43% ($397,042) ‐6.27% ($561,834) ‐2.21% ($198,013)

Midland Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 1/1/2014 59.1 $38,963,054 66.82% $14,597,213 13.20% 21.70% 34.90% 38.58% ‐3.68% ($537,177) ‐5.32% ($775,907) ‐1.72% ($250,421)

Galveston Employees' Retirement Plan for Police 1/1/2012 53.5 $25,694,496 46.90% $8,233,404 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 28.20% ‐4.20% ($345,803) ‐6.11% ($503,223) ‐1.90% ($156,783)

Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund7 12/31/2013 51.0 $536,561,000 85.14% $342,219,200 13.06% 13.02% 26.08% 28.53% ‐2.45% ($8,384,370) ‐3.33% ($11,411,732) ‐1.44% ($4,920,326)

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund 1/1/2014 50.2 $17,248,638 69.65% $6,542,789 16.00% 14.00% 30.00% 33.30% ‐3.30% ($215,912) ‐5.05% ($330,221) ‐1.20% ($78,607)

Beaumont Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 49.6 $42,804,466 68.25% $17,889,017 15.00% 15.00% 30.00% 32.60% ‐2.60% ($465,114) ‐4.05% ($725,100) ‐0.90% ($160,762)

Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund 1/1/2014 49.3 $1,128,966,628 63.86% $373,848,113 8.41% 19.98% 28.39% 31.22% ‐2.83% ($10,579,902) ‐4.68% ($17,513,090) ‐0.67% ($2,523,200)

McAllen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 9/30/2012 43.9 $19,360,417 66.15% $9,361,646 11.00% 13.00% 24.00% 26.03% ‐2.03% ($190,041) ‐3.38% ($316,850) ‐0.41% ($38,612)

Amarillo Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund8 1/1/2012 41.0 $33,581,721 78.19% $15,058,726 11.00% 17.83% 28.83% 33.50% ‐4.67% ($703,243) ‐6.18% ($930,403) ‐2.83% ($426,167)

San Angelo Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2013 40.9 $29,189,521 65.01% $10,412,929 14.20% 20.28% 34.48% 36.63% ‐2.15% ($223,878) ‐3.90% ($406,342) ‐0.07% ($6,812)

Marshall Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 38.6 $8,832,086 44.18% $2,398,925 14.00% 19.05% 33.05% 35.51% ‐2.46% ($59,014) ‐4.78% ($114,563) 0.30% $7,307

Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund 12/31/2013 37.4 $11,217,721 61.77% $5,660,398 13.24% 15.00% 28.24% 29.42% ‐1.18% ($66,793) ‐2.43% ($137,360) 0.31% $17,458

Killeen Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 9/30/2012 36.1 $13,613,668 66.91% $11,025,643 10.00% 13.00% 23.00% 23.63% ‐0.63% ($69,462) ‐1.40% ($154,648) 0.29% $32,243

Plainview Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund9 12/31/2011 35.2 $7,729,513 39.13% $1,654,550 14.00% 21.45% 35.45% 38.92% ‐3.47% ($57,413) ‐6.36% ($105,304) ‐0.01% ($236)

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System10 7/1/2013 35.0 $1,746,998,000 57.70% $549,971,000 3.12% 23.20% 26.32% 29.22% ‐2.90% ($15,949,159) ‐4.63% ($25,483,715) ‐0.93% ($5,126,000)

Cleburne Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 34.1 $12,110,818 57.36% $3,878,009 13.00% 23.50% 36.50% 37.65% ‐1.15% ($44,597) ‐3.11% ($120,766) 1.19% $46,322

Texas City Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2012 33.6 $13,203,613 52.95% $4,454,223 16.00% 16.00% 32.00% 32.90% ‐0.90% ($40,088) ‐2.67% ($118,923) 1.16% $51,492

Abilene Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 10/1/2013 33.5 $39,134,330 57.49% $12,623,389 13.20% 19.25% 32.45% 33.39% ‐0.94% ($118,660) ‐2.80% ($352,899) 1.26% $159,317

El Paso Police Pension Fund 1/1/2014 32.0 $193,755,713 78.23% $70,817,206 13.89% 18.50% 32.39% 40.34% ‐7.95% ($5,629,968) ‐9.50% ($6,731,116) ‐6.12% ($4,332,195)

Brownwood Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 12/31/2011 31.8 $4,289,003 39.91% $1,609,304 8.00% 20.00% 28.00% 28.48% ‐0.48% ($7,725) ‐2.19% ($35,247) 1.58% $25,500

Temple Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 9/30/2012 30.8 $10,747,775 76.19% $6,503,608 14.69% 14.93% 29.62% 29.75% ‐0.13% ($8,455) ‐1.16% ($75,460) 1.09% $71,062

Big Spring Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 1/1/2013 30.8 $7,544,372 56.73% $3,173,050 13.00% 12.00% 25.00% 25.21% ‐0.21% ($6,663) ‐1.81% ($57,512) 1.74% $55,062

Notes:

(1) The Total 30‐year Rate is based on the 30.9 year rate (Texas Government code Section 811.006) for ERS, LECOSRF and JRS II instead of a 30 year rate

(2) Employee contribution is scheduled to increase to 7.20% for FY 2016 and 7.50% for all subsequent years.

(4) The total contribution rate for FY 2014 increased to 31.36%.

(5) The total contribution rate for FY 2014 increased to 32.00%.

(6) The total contribution rate is scheduled to increase to 27.65% in FY 2015.

(7) Dallas Employees' amortization period calculated assuming a total contribution rate of 26.08% of payroll, and projecting the contribution rate at the pension obligation bond payoff in 2035.

(8) The total contribution rate for FY 2014 increased to 31.83%. 30 year rate projected by PRB.

(9) The total contribution rate is scheduled to increase to 37.07% in 2015 and 38.68% in 2016.

(10) Houston Municipal Employees amortization period calculated by the PRB assuming a total contribution rate of 26.32% of payroll, with future increases under the Meet and Confer agreement.

(3) TESRS contributions are comprised of two parts paid by local municipalities. Part one varies with a minimum contribution of $36 per member, per month. Part two does not affect annuities and is adjusted by the state board based on the most recent actuarial valuation,

effective for the following two state fiscal years. Members are volunteers and the covered group does not have a payroll.Shortfall based on 8/31/2012 actuarial valuation and 8/31/2013 financial statements.

103

APPENDIX I

Sponsor Financial Information

As of December 2014

Sponsor Plan Name

Fiscal

Year

General Fund

Expenditures1EOY General Fund

Balance

General Obligation

Debt UAAL

Projected 40‐

year Dollar

Shortfall

Amount

40‐Year

Shortfall as

Percent of GF

Expenditures

Projected 30‐

year Dollar

Shortfall

Amount

30‐Year Shortfall

as Percent of GF

Expenditures

Abilene Abilene Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $74,325,437 $25,264,813 $87,933,041 $39,134,330 ‐ ‐ ($296,650) 0.40%

Amarillo Amarillo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $140,319,334 $51,713,160 $5,016,000 $33,581,721 ($426,167) 0.30% ($703,243) 0.50%

Atlanta Atlanta Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $2,975,055 $1,181,930 $1,480,822 $1,104,539 ($17,815) 0.60% ($26,376) 0.89%

Beaumont Beaumont Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $109,256,309 $32,023,739 $59,968,050 $42,804,466 ($160,762) 0.15% ($465,114) 0.43%

Big Spring Big Spring Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $19,014,005 $10,769,453 $525,000 $7,544,372 ‐ ‐ ($6,663) 0.04%

Brownwood Brownwood Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $15,768,353 ($195,278) $17,055,920 $4,289,003 ‐ ‐ ($7,725) 0.05%

Cleburne Cleburne Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $28,811,630 $16,311,535 $18,253,004 $12,110,818 ‐ ‐ ($44,597) 0.15%

Conroe Conroe Fire Fighters' Retirement Fund 2013 $48,552,617 $31,716,832 $15,475,000 $11,217,721 ‐ ‐ ($66,793) 0.14%

Dallas Dallas Employees' Retirement Fund 2012 $974,784,000 $149,036,000 $1,292,285,000 $536,561,000 ($4,920,326) 0.50% ($8,384,370) 0.86%

El Paso El Paso Police Pension Fund 2013 $333,324,704 $37,255,483 $557,600,000 $193,755,713 ‐ ‐ ($5,629,968) 1.69%

Fort Worth Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund 2013 $557,707,000 $161,335,000 $439,100,000 $1,128,966,628 ($2,523,200) 0.45% ($10,579,902) 1.90%

Galveston Galveston Employees' Retirement Fund 2013 $9,891,454 ($321,447) 0.76% ($375,312) 0.89%

Galveston Firefighter's Relief & Retirement Fund 2013 $17,248,638 ($78,607) 0.19% ($215,912) 0.51%

Galveston Employees Pension Plan for Police 2013 $25,694,496 ($156,783) 0.37% ($345,803) 0.82%

Galveston General Fund & Total Projected Shortfall 2013 $42,343,630 $18,736,895 $20,358,000 $52,834,588 ($556,838) 1.32% ($937,027) 2.21%

Greenville Greenville Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $19,654,413 $4,471,725 $36,060,000 $13,516,305 ($32,000) 0.16% ($116,952) 0.60%

Harlingen Harlingen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $36,923,810 $15,784,171 $19,465,000 $11,953,301 ($284,981) 0.77% ($369,940) 1.00%

Houston Houston Municipal Employees Pension System 2013 $1,743,902,000 $276,330,000 $2,902,000,000 $1,746,998,000 ‐ ‐ ($15,949,159) 0.91%

Irving Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $170,197,698 $51,458,966 $210,000,000 $57,502,156 ($549,085) 0.32% ($958,139) 0.56%

Killeen Killeen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $70,466,421 $22,335,006 $102,200,000 $13,613,668 ‐ ‐ ($69,462) 0.10%

Longview Longview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $56,119,446 $23,383,241 $58,255,000 $36,075,623 ($217,503) 0.39% ($449,007) 0.80%

Lufkin Lufkin Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2012 $29,066,883 $9,691,983 $62,855 $17,762,521 ($118,276) 0.41% ($228,623) 0.79%

Marshall Marshall Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2012 $17,969,557 $6,704,988 $5,260,000 $8,832,086 ‐ ‐ ($59,014) 0.33%

McAllen McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $94,146,279 $43,875,557 $22,000,000 $19,360,417 ($38,612) 0.04% ($190,041) 0.20%

Midland Midland Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $97,306,623 $58,860,503 $35,400,000 $38,963,054 ($250,421) 0.26% ($537,177) 0.55%

Odessa Odessa Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund 2013 $72,413,629 $46,616,517 $80,670,000 $44,828,726 ($1,128,848) 1.56% ($1,480,153) 2.04%

Orange Orange Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $16,316,480 $5,210,063 $8,740,000 $6,544,945 ($61,766) 0.38% ($111,976) 0.69%

Plainview Plainview Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $10,742,061 $14,759,707 $14,142,000 $7,729,513 ‐ ‐ ($57,413) 0.53%

San Angelo San Angelo Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $60,259,615 $21,844,938 $163,395,850 $29,189,521 ($6,812) 0.01% ($223,878) 0.37%

Sweetwater Sweetwater Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $8,357,751 $8,147,236 $8,520,000 $3,163,694 ($52,099) 0.62% ($77,240) 0.92%

Temple Temple Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $57,257,409 $26,114,073 $112,762,235 $10,747,775 ‐ ‐ ($8,455) 0.01%

Texas (State of) Employees Retirement System of Texas 2013 $7,492,814,715 ($191,508,445) 0.24% ($238,217,707) 0.30%

Law Enforcement and Custodial Officer Sup. Ret. Fund 2013 $323,174,989 ($10,213,171) 0.01% ($12,232,128) 0.02%

Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two 2013 $37,855,797 ($1,203,543) 0.002% ($1,463,766) 0.002%

Texas Emergency Services Retirement System 2013 $33,868,555 ($678,352) 0.001% ($880,285) 0.001%

State of Texas General Fund & Total Projected Shortfall 2013 $78,927,757,000 $15,041,488,000 $12,089,019,000 $7,887,714,056 ($203,603,510) 0.26% ($252,793,887) 0.32%

Texas City Texas City Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $44,480,791 $14,802,744 $28,500,000 $13,203,613 ‐ ‐ ($40,088) 0.09%

University Park University Park Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $23,618,201 $27,007,042 $0 $10,776,761 ($70,352) 0.30% ($143,456) 0.61%Wichita Falls Wichita Falls Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund 2013 $67,094,298 $17,570,095 $5,491,678 $24,641,489 ($198,013) 0.30% ($397,042) 0.59%

(1) The General Fund expenditures may not necessarily represent all sponsor funding sources for a retirement system; a significant portion of the state and city budgets come from non‐general fund sources.

104

APPENDIX J Actuarial Assumptions and Methods

Actuarial methods and assumptions, combined with participant data and the plan benefit design, are used to value current and future benefit obligations. Retirement systems select actuarial assumptions, with guidance from the actuary. Actuarial assumptions for pension plans can be categorized as economic or demographic assumptions.

Economic assumptions pertain to interest rates used to discount plan liabilities, salary increases for plan participants, expected rate of return, and inflation rates.

Demographic assumptions include plan participant rates of retirement, turnover or withdrawal rates, rates of disability, and mortality rates.

The PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness state that actuarial assumptions should be reasonable, and should comply with applicable actuarial standards.

INVESTMENT RETURN ASSUMPTION

The investment return assumption is the long‐term expected rate of return on pension system assets. Additionally, the assumed rate of return is used by system actuaries to discount future pension obligations to determine the recommended contribution for adequate system funding. If actual returns do not meet the assumed returns, then the actuarially determined recommended contributions would not be adequate to ensure system sustainability in the long‐term. The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems using various investment return assumptions.

Current Investment Return Assumptions used by Texas

Systems

Investment Return

Assumption

Percent of Total

Systems

4.00% 1%

5.50% 1%

6.00% 1%

6.50% 1%

7.00% 11%

7.25% 5%

7.50% 18%

7.75% 16%

7.90% 1%

8.00% 36%

8.25% 5%

8.50% 4%

Total 100%

INFLATION ASSUMPTION

Inflation is the rate at which price levels are rising, and purchasing power is falling. The assumed rate of inflation is included as a component of the assumed rate of return and the assumed plan participant salary increases. It may also be used to value cost‐of‐living adjustment (COLA) benefit increases for

105

pension systems. The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems using various inflation assumptions.

Current Inflation Assumptions used by Texas Systems

Inflation Assumption Percent of Total Systems

0.00% 1%

2.50% 3%

2.75% 1%

3.00% 45%

3.25% 8%

3.50% 20%

3.75% 7%

4.00% 15%

Total 100%

ACTUARIAL COST METHODS

The valuation of future benefits is calculated using actuarial cost methods. Currently Texas retirement system actuaries use one of the following five valuation methodologies.

Entry Age Normal (EAN) – This methodology projects the benefit costs of each individual from entry age into the plan until assumed exit age from the active group. This benefit liability is allocated on a level basis over the earnings or service of the individual. Relative to other actuarial cost methods, entry age normal tends to produce more stable, predictable contribution rates. EAN is the most common method used in Texas.

Ultimate EAN –This methodology is used for plans that have different tiers of benefits based on date of hire. Under ultimate EAN, the plan’s normal cost is calculated by assuming that each plan participant is a member of the most recently added tier. This methodology produces a lower normal cost, a higher unfunded actuarial accrued liability, a smaller required contribution, and a shorter amortization period than the entry age normal method.

Projected Unit Credit (PUC) – Unlike EAN, PUC does not calculate benefits on a level basis over the earnings service of the individual. Under the PUC methodology, annual benefit costs for each member increase as the member approaches retirement age. This increases the value attributed to future benefits versus previously accrued plan member benefits.

Traditional Unit Credit (UC) – This methodology is appropriate for plans with benefits that are based on dollar amounts rather than percentages of pay, for frozen plans, or for plans with no active members. The UC methodology calculates the actuarial accrued liability based on current pay and service, not future pay. Using this methodology, the annual cost attributable to benefit liabilities for each member (normal cost) increases significantly as the members approach retirement age.

Aggregate – Under this methodology, the excess of the present value of projected benefits over the value of plan assets is allocated on a level basis over the service lives of the plan participants. The portion of the allocation attributed to the current year is included as plan annual benefit cost (normal cost). Since previously earned benefits are assumed to be paid under this methodology, all costs are generated from projection of future liabilities.

106

The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems using each actuarial cost methodology.

Current Actuarial Cost Methods used by Texas Systems

Actuarial Cost Method Percent of Total

Systems

Entry Age Normal 80%

Ultimate Entry Age Normal 4%

Projected Unit Credit 10%

Unit Credit 4%

Aggregate 2%

Total 100%

ASSET VALUATION METHODS

The market value of assets (MVA) is the value at which assets could be bought or sold in a publicly‐traded market. The actuarial value of assets (AVA) is used for actuarial valuation and could be the MVA or a smoothed value. A smoothed value phases in gains and losses to reduce calculated recommended contribution volatility associated with the use of market value. This increases recommended contribution stability and predictability. The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems using each asset valuation methodology.

Current Asset Valuation Methods used by Texas Systems

Asset Valuation Method Percent of Total

Systems

5‐Year Smoothing 70%

Market Value (MVA) 18%




Other 8%

Total 100%

AMORTIZATION METHODS

The amortization method is the process for making payments on the pension obligation. The amortization methods used by Texas public retirement systems are listed below:

Level Dollar – Assumes pension payments are a level dollar amount over the amortization period.

Level Percentage – Assumes the pension payments are a level percentage of payroll and are scheduled to increase at the payroll growth assumption annually.

Open – Assumes that the targeted amortization period is started again each year.

Closed – Assumes that the ending date of the amortization period is fixed so that the remaining total amortization period should decrease by one each year.

Recalculated – For plans with a fixed contribution rate, the remaining amortization period is recalculated each year.

107

The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems using each amortization method.

Current Actuarial Amortization Methods used by Texas Systems

Actuarial Amortization Method Percent of Total

Systems

Level % Recalculated 57%

Level % Closed 6%

Level % Open 18%

Level $ Recalculated 10%

Level $ Closed 4%

Level $ Open 5%

Total 100%

PAYROLL GROWTH ASSUMPTION A payroll growth assumption is used for plans whose amortization method is a level % (closed, open or recalculated). Because a level percentage of payroll amortization payment is expected to increase at the payroll growth assumption, a higher payroll growth assumption lowers the required contribution (and defers plan funding). The following table shows the percentage of Texas public retirement systems that use various payroll growth assumptions.

SUMMARY

The actuarial methods and assumptions used by a typical public retirement system in Texas are the EAN cost method, 5‐year smoothing to determine the AVA, an 8 percent investment return assumption, and a 4 percent payroll growth assumption. The most common amortization method used by retirement systems is a level percent of pay, with the amortization period reset each time a new actuarial valuation is performed, based on the contributions available to amortize pension obligations.

Current Payroll Growth Assumptions used by Texas Systems

Payroll Growth Assumption Percent of Systems

2.00% 1%

2.75% 1%

3.00% 11%

3.25% 4%

3.50% 26%

3.75% 7%

4.00% 35%

4.25% 4%

4.50% 7%

4.75% 1%

5.00% 1%

5.10% 1%

5.50% 1%

Total 100%

108

APPENDIX K Glossary of Actuarial Terms

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) Computed differently under different actuarial cost methods, the actuarial accrued liability generally represents the portion of the present value of future projected benefits attributable to service credit earned (or accrued) as of the valuation date. Actuarial Assumptions Factors which actuaries use in estimating the cost of funding a defined benefit plan. Examples include: the rate of return on plan investments; mortality rates; and the rates at which plan participants are expected to leave employment because of retirement, disability, termination, etc. Actuarial Cost Methods An actuarial cost method defines the allocation of pension costs (and contributions) over a member's working career. All standard actuarial cost methods are comprised of two components: normal cost and the actuarial accrued liability. An actuarial cost method determines the incidence of pension costs, not the ultimate cost of a pension plan; that cost is determined by the actual benefits paid less the actual investment income. Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) The AVA is the value of pension plan investments used by the actuary in an actuarial valuation (sometimes referred to as valuation of assets). Actuaries often select an asset valuation method that smoothes the effects of short‐term volatility in the market value of assets. Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) The ADC is the sponsor contribution calculated in an actuarial valuation report that meets a minimum funding standard with respect to the actuarial cost method and assumptions used for the retirement system. Amortization Period The amortization period is the number of years required to pay a liability in full, assuming a constant rate of interest and annual payments which are either level or geometrically increasing. Annual Required Contribution (ARC) The GASB 27 ARC is the sponsor contribution amount sufficient to meet the normal cost, and amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued liability over a period of 30 years or less. Normal Cost Computed differently under different funding methods, the normal cost generally represents the portion of the cost of projected benefits allocated to the current plan year. The employer normal cost equals the total normal cost of the plan reduced by employee contributions. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) The excess, if any, of the AAL over AVA. This is the portion of the present value of benefits earned to date not covered by current plan assets.

109

APPENDIX L

Legislation Requiring Financial Health Study

Section 7 of House Bill 13 by Callegari, 83rd Texas Legislature

SECTION 7. (a) In this section:

(1) "Governing body of a public retirement system" and "public retirement system" have the

meanings assigned by Section 802.001, Government Code.

(2) "Pension review board" means the State Pension Review Board established under Chapter

801, Government Code.

(b) The pension review board shall conduct a study of the financial health of public retirement

systems in this state, including each system's ability to meet its long‐term obligations taking into account

the contributions made to, benefits paid by, and investments made by the public retirement system.

The pension review board may adopt rules to define the scope of the study under this subsection.

(c) Each public retirement system shall fully cooperate with the pension review board in

conducting the study required under Subsection (b) of this section and timely respond to requests for

information made by the board for the purpose of performing the study. Confidential information as

described by Section 552.0038(c), Government Code, that is provided by a public retirement system

under this subsection remains confidential and may not be disclosed by the board.

(d) Not later than September 1, 2014, the pension review board shall prepare a written report

containing the findings of the study conducted under this section, including the board's

recommendations regarding how a public retirement system may mitigate its risk of not meeting its

long‐term obligations.

(e) The pension review board shall provide each public retirement system covered in the report

prepared under Subsection (d) of this section a reasonable opportunity to review the portion of the

report and the recommendations applicable to that retirement system and an opportunity to submit a

response to the board. The board may revise its report after considering a response. Not later than

December 31, 2014, the board shall submit to the legislature the final written report, including the

board's recommendations, and a copy of the responses provided by the public retirement systems

under this subsection.

110

APPENDIX M

Texas Public Retirement System Responses

House Bill 13 (83rd Regular Session) required the PRB to provide public retirement systems a reasonable opportunity to review the recommendations in the study and submit a response to the Board. Accordingly, the Board established a six‐week comment period for retirement system responses to the preliminary report from September through October of 2014.

The PRB received official comments for consideration from four retirement systems: The City of Austin Employees’ Retirement System, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Texas County & District Retirement System, and Texas Municipal Retirement System.

The law also required the PRB to include a copy of the retirement system responses in the final report to the Legislature. The full copies of the comments are available on the following pages.

111

1

HMEPS Comments on the Study of the Financial Health of Texas Retirement Systems by the Texas Pension Review Board

We would like to compliment the Pension Review Board (PRB) for the careful and thorough research underlying this study, and to thank them for being open to comments and suggestions throughout the process. Importantly, the Study appropriately directs attention to the necessity of adequate and consistent sponsor contributions when it comes to the health of public pension systems. We would like to make the following specific comments.

1. The Study states, in paragraph 1 of the Executive Summary: “The economic recession of

2008-2009 that impacted the financial health of public retirement systems …” and refers to “certain cities and counties across the country” that have filed for or are preparing to file for bankruptcy. While this is true, it should also be pointed out that no bankruptcies or threats of bankruptcies have occurred in Texas. Further, while the health of public retirements systems in Texas is the focus of this study, it is important to note that there are often other significant non-pension related causes of municipal financial stress. Houston, one of the fastest growing cities in the country, is a case in point. Despite Houston's rapid growth, a variety of issues unrelated to pensions limit the ability of the City government to finance necessary services. For example, in recent years there has been a vast expansion of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) – a useful policy tool that has grown far beyond its original intent. A TIRZ “works by locking in the dollar amount that the city receives in property tax revenue. If rising property values cause revenues to grow…they’re redirected to a TIRZ fund” which is “managed by unelected boards at secretive meetings.” (Houston Chronicle, 7/24/14). In 2009, Houston Mayor Bill White warned that “…the effect of capping the contribution to the general fund from property taxes for substantial portions of the City has been to reduce the overall financial contribution by parts of the City to public safety, garbage collection, citywide infrastructure, health benefits, pensions and other citywide costs… I strongly warn against the creation of any new TIRZ…until this fundamental problem is addressed.”

2


Since then, White points out, TIRZ control has “grown from 19,397 acres five years ago to 35,976 acres today.” We believe the Study should mention additional stresses on municipal finances, such as TIRZ, rising health care costs, etc, at least as prominently as the recession that struck six years ago.

2. On page 18, item 2b, the Study states: “Additionally, systems should disclose the dollar amount of accrued liability attributable to DROP balances, with a breakdown of active and inactive accrued liability. This disclosure is necessary for the PRB to accurately reproduce the actuarial valuation results of retirement systems with DROPs.”

There should be an explanation as to why the PRB is attempting to “reproduce” actuarial results of retirement systems. While actuarial audits are required by state law, we are unaware of the PRB having a role in performing these audits.

The full liability of pension systems is, naturally, captured in regular actuarial valuations and audits of those valuations. It is not explained in the Study why this one particular component of pension liability needs special reporting beyond what is included in GASB.

3. On page 19, item 3c, the Study states: “To address any retirement system funding deficits,

systems and sponsors should discuss benefit provision modifications…”

As previously outlined, financial stress on municipal budgets should not automatically and solely translate into discussions on “benefit provision modifications.” HMEPS is well aware of the need to address benefit provisions in some circumstances. In fact, HMEPS engaged in a series of proactive reforms over the last decade. These reforms, enacted via the Meet & Confer process created by the Legislature, included over $850 million in future benefit reductions to participants. The reforms also addressed a wide variety of issues including COLAs, DROP accounts, benefit levels, and eligibility requirements. The reforms have been widely praised as a model for other systems by outside observers, including elected City officials. HMEPS is also acutely aware, however, that while such reforms can be a part of a genuine attempt by a sponsor to address all of its fiscal challenges, it can also be used as a method of avoiding such careful analysis and decision making.

A serious effort by sponsoring governments to address fiscal challenges involves not just the obvious attention to salary and benefit matters, but a comprehensive approach that includes the role of revenue constraints (such as caps on property tax revenue), debt buildup, as well as structures intended to siphon tax dollars away from the general operating fund (e.g., TIRZs discussed above).

3


4. Page 103, Appendix I calculates projected dollar shortfall amounts as a percentage of the sponsor’s general fund expenditures. The table properly states in footnote (1): “The General Fund expenditures may not necessarily represent all sponsor funding sources for a retirement system.”

We think it is helpful to show the potential significance of the remark in the footnote. For Houston, the General Fund expenditures are correctly shown as about $1.74 billion. However, the full HMEPS UAAL of about $1.75 billion is used to calculate the Dollar Shortfall. Approximately 60% of HMEPS participants, however, work in departments that are not included in the General Fund. These include such significant departments as airports, convention & entertainment and the combined utility district. In this case it might be more appropriate to compare HMEPS' UAAL with the total City government expenditures of about $4.15 billion (source: page 6 of the COH CAFR: http://www.houstontx.gov/controller/cafr/cafr2013.pdf – which is page 32 of the pdf at this link). This would reduce the HMEPS 30-year shortfall from .91% of expenditures to about .38%.

study of the financial health of texas public …...the financial health of public retirement...

Documents