Editors note: This post first appeared on the Laura and John Arnold Foundation website and is reprinted with permission.
Houston, TX—This morning, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) held a press conference and released a new report on the state of Houston’s public pension systems, titled, “Swamped: How Pension Debt is Sinking the Bayou City.”
The report, co-authored by Josh McGee, LJAF Vice President of Public Accountability, and Michelle Welch, LJAF Public Accountability Research and Policy Manager, reveals that the city of Houston owes public workers at least $3.1 billion for retirement benefits they have already earned.
Houston’s pension debt is now a billion dollars more than the city’s total general fund revenue, and the city is at a tipping point. If political leaders don’t enact real reforms, the pension debt, which is continuing to rise, will threaten the city’s ability to give workers and retirees the retirement they were promised. In addition, taxpayers may be forced to pay the price through higher taxes or reduced funding for roads, infrastructure, parks, and other public services that help make Houston a great place to live and work.
“Houston’s hardworking public employees deserve the fair and secure retirement they were promised. But, for more than a decade, local leaders have played political games with workers’ pensions,” McGee explained. “The city can no longer afford to ignore its pension problems and kick the can down the road. If Houston fails to swiftly and responsibly address the pension debt, the city risks going the way of Chicago—and both public workers and taxpayers will pay the price.“
Houston finds itself at this tipping point due in large part to the fact that the city hasn’t been paying enough into the pension fund on an annual basis. Political leaders have failed to address this issue and, instead, are betting on unlikely investment returns to pay off the debt. For example, the pension systems for Houston’s firefighters and municipal employees use the highest investment return assumption for any major plan in the United States—8.5 percent. Meanwhile, the pension system for Houston’s police officers uses an investment return assumption of 8 percent, a number that is still higher than the national average.
At these optimistic, and arguably improbable, rates, Houston’s pension plans are only 75 percent funded, but if the projected rates of return were adjusted to a more reasonable 7 percent, the city’s plans would end up being only 63 percent funded. In other words, it is likely that the pension plans are in even worse shape than the city claims, and if Houston’s pension debt continues to grow, the city will face serious financial issues.
In the report, McGee and Welch present a range of fair and sustainable solutions that would address the growing debt and put the city’s pension plans—and the city’s financial health—back on the road to recovery.
These solutions include:
- Obtaining local control of Houston’s pension systems, which would give local leaders the authority to negotiate directly with workers and to enact any changes at the local level;
- Establishing a responsible payment schedule that will pay off Houston’s pension debt in 20 years or less and keep the pension systems debt-free in the future;
- Re-evaluating the risky assumptions underlying Houston’s pension systems and setting more reasonable rates of return for the funds; and
- Embedding accountability and transparency into the city’s pension systems, so that public workers and taxpayers alike have a clear understanding of the pension funds’ performance and the city’s overall financial health.
City leaders must make meaningful reforms and fix the pension systems once and for all so that Houston’s dedicated public servants receive the fair and secure retirements they deserve and were promised.
About the Laura and John Arnold Foundation
LJAF is a private foundation that is working to address our nation’s most pressing and persistent challenges using evidence-based, multi-disciplinary approaches. Its investments are currently focused on criminal justice, education, evidence-based policy and innovation, public accountability, and research integrity. LJAF has offices in Houston, New York City, and Washington, D.C.
Houston is a first-world city with a third-world city government. We need our next mayor to stand for fiscal responsibility, or the city will continue to go the way of Detroit.
So, Eduardo, just what services do you want the next mayor to cut? Keep in mind that almost 60{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the general fund budget is used for fire and police, and that revenues are currently restricted by the revenue cap. Here’s a link to the budget page on the City website, so you can see just where the money is going http://www.houstontx.gov/budget/
Ross,
Let’s start with the Police Budget
1. No more crime lab, how many times must the crime lab get sued before people figured out sworn officers are not scientist.
a. If they want to remain in the crime lab business all judgments must come from police pension benefits first.
2. Mounted patrol gone.
3. All officers sitting by the desks must investigate 3 burglary’s a day until backlog is cleared.
The police budget is a joke.
Fire-Rural Metro here we come!
Several hundred million in savings without looking at a budget:-)
*automatic termination for bitching.
There’s almost $100 Million in the “Convention and Entertainment Budget. Perhaps we could save some $$ there.
The Convention budget is funded by hotel taxes, which are dedicated to that purpose. The portion you see in the City budget is all debt service, with a little for a few employees. Houston First Corporation runs the facilities for the City, and is funded by the hotel taxes that aren’t needed for debt service, and by the revenue from the various facilities.
$100 Million for debt service???? Really? What the heck did we buy that cost $2 Billion dollars?
As for where the money comes from – all money is fungible.
The only money the city can’t touch “dedicated” is the money from the airport, that is because Federal laws prohibits that. All other money that is “dedicated” is subject to interpretation as to how it will be spent. We can save a few hundred thousand by stopping the funding of the Greater Houston Partnership.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-high-court-limits-open-government-law-GHP-6352311.php
Like it or not, if the choice is between cutting 300 police officers and 200 firemen or cutting other services to fund the existing pensions, I’d rather cut the pensions for all new employees. The city can circumvent state law by setting up a new system for each of the three groups’ new employees to have Social Security or a 401k style plan.
Stephen,
Great how can we circumvent the law to undue Rebuild Houston. Does your idea come with the money for the subsequent litigation with the unions.
The city already has the ability to change the pensions on new hires. Bill White changed the terms even for not new hires, for instance, a combination of age and employment with the city was the requirement for retirement. White raised it to 75. New police officers do not have the same pensions nor terms as officers that have been there for over x number of years, not sure about years it is about 15 but not sure.
Annise Parker admitted that the city already had the ability to do that.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Parker-wants-separate-pension-plan-for-new-5704486.php
The one thing that the politicians and the people running for mayor do not seem to want to talk about is the bear in the closet. I estimate that at minimum 30{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}, probably higher, of the police department can retire today if the chose to. The fire department is probably about the same.
If someone is going to mess with your pension and you can retire now, what would you do? Take one for the politicians?