2015 Actuarial Experience Investigation Study · 2018. 4. 20. · We are pleased to present our...

T E X A S M U N I C I P A L R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M

A C T U A R I A L E X P E R I E N C E I N V E S T I G A T I O N S T U D Y A S O F D E C E M B E R 3 1 , 2 0 1 4

November 18, 2015 Board of Trustees Texas Municipal Retirement System Austin, Texas Dear Members of the Board: Subject: Results of the 2015 Experience Study We are pleased to present our report of the 2015 Actuarial Experience Investigation Study for the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS). Our report includes a discussion of the recent experience of the System, it presents our recommendations for new actuarial assumptions and methods, and it provides information about the actuarial impact of these recommendations on the liabilities and other key actuarial measures of TMRS.

With the Board's approval of the recommendations in this report, we believe the actuarial condition of the System will be more accurately portrayed. The Board’s decisions should be based on the appropriateness of each recommendation, not on their collective effect on funding periods or unfunded liabilities.

This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices, and with the Actuarial Standards of Practice issued by the Actuarial Standards Board. The undersigned meet all of the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries. In addition, all of the undersigned have extensive experience as retained public sector actuaries for several large, statewide public retirement systems.

We wish to thank Ms. Leslee Hardy, ASA, EA, FCA, MAAA, Director of Actuarial Services, and the entire TMRS staff for their assistance in this project.

Sincerely, Joseph P. Newton, FSA, EA, MAAA Mark R. Randall, FCA, EA, MAAA Brad Stewart, ASA, EA, MAAA Yi Chen, ASA, MAAA J:\3052\2015\Exp\Report\ExperienceStudy Linked.docx

Texas Municipal Retirement System

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PAGE COVER LETTER

SECTION I 2 INTRODUCTION

SECTION II 7 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION III 10 ANALYSIS OF EXPERIENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION IV 35 ACTUARIAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION V 38 SUMMARY OF NEW ASSUMPTIONS

SECTION VI 50 SUMMARY OF DATA AND EXPERIENCE

APPENDIX I TERMINATION AND POPULATION EXPERIENCE BY CITY

APPENDIX II ACTUARIAL IMPACT BY CITY

SECTION I I N T R O D U C T IO N


Section I Introduction

2

Introduction A periodic review and selection of the actuarial assumptions is one of many important components of understanding and managing the financial aspects of the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS). Use of outdated or inappropriate assumptions can result in understated costs which will lead to higher future contribution requirements or perhaps an inability to pay benefits when due; or, on the other hand, produce overstated costs which place an unnecessarily large burden on the current generation of members, employers, and taxpayers. A single set of assumptions is typically not expected to be suitable forever. As the actual experience unfolds or the future expectations change, the assumptions should be reviewed and adjusted accordingly. It is important to recognize that the impact from various outcomes and the ability to adjust from experience deviating from the assumption are not symmetric. Due to compounding economic forces, legal limitations, and even moral obligations, outcomes from underestimating future liabilities are much more difficult to manage than outcomes of overestimates, and that asymmetric risk should be considered when the assumptions are set and the investment policy and funding policy are created. As such, the assumption set used in the valuation process needs to represent the “best estimate” of the future experience of the System and be at least as likely, if not more than likely, to overestimate the future liabilities than underestimate them. Using this strategic mindset, each assumption was analyzed compared to the actual experience of TMRS and general experience of other large public employee retirement systems. Changes in certain assumptions and methods are suggested upon this comparison to remove any bias that may exist and to perhaps add a slight margin for future adverse experience, where appropriate. Next, the assumption set as a whole was analyzed for consistency and to ensure that the projection of liabilities was reasonable and consistent with historical trends. The following report provides our recommended changes to the current actuarial assumptions. Summary of Process In determining liabilities and contribution rates for retirement plans, actuaries must make assumptions about the future. Among the assumptions that must be made are:

• Retirement rates • Mortality rates • Turnover rates • Disability rates • Investment return rate • Salary increase rates • Inflation rate



3

For some of these assumptions, such as the mortality rates, past experience provides important evidence about the future. For others, such as the investment return assumption, the link between past and future results is much weaker. In either case, actuaries should review the plan’s assumptions periodically and determine whether these assumptions are consistent with actual past experience and with anticipated future experience.

The last such actuarial experience investigation was performed in conjunction with the December 31, 2010 actuarial valuation. For this experience study, we have added TMRS’ experience for the four-year period from December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2014 (FY 2011 – FY 2014).

In conducting experience studies, actuaries generally use data over a period of several years. This is necessary in order to gather enough data so that the results are statistically significant. In addition, if the study period is too short, the impact of recent economic conditions may lead to misleading results. It is known, for example, that the health of the general economy can impact salary increase rates and withdrawal rates. Using results gathered during a short-term “boom or bust” will not be representative of the long-term trends in these assumptions. Also, the adoption of legislation, such as plan improvements or changes in salary schedules, will sometimes cause a short-term distortion in the experience. For example, if an early retirement window was opened during the study period, we would usually see a short-term spike in the number of retirements followed by a dearth of retirements for the following two-to-four years. Using a longer study period mitigates giving too much weight to such short-term effects. On the other hand, using a much longer period could “water down” real changes that may be occurring, such as mortality improvement or a change in the ages at which members retire.

For this analysis, we used between five and twenty years of data, depending on the assumption being studied as follows:

Assumption Data Used Comment

Payroll/Population Growth 10-20 Years Long term trends are needed, but more importantly, prospective changes must be considered

Individual Salary Increases 9 Years 9 years is the combination of the two most recent experience studies. Longer period will capture a longer economic cycle

Termination 9 Years Longer period will capture a longer economic cycle

Post-Retirement Mortality 4 Years This assumption reacts the quickest to changing trends and is best studied using an even number of years for comparing to generational mortality tables. More years were used to analyze the rate of improvement over time

All other 5 Years The assumptions react quicker to changing trends and are less correlated with the economic cycle. Five years provides more credibility to some of the assumptions that have smaller incidence, such as active mortality and disability



4

In an experience study, we first determine the number of deaths, retirements, etc. that occurred during the study period. Then we determine the number expected to occur, based on the current actuarial assumptions. The number of “expected” decrements is determined by multiplying the probability of the occurrence at the given age, by the “exposures” at that same age. For example, let’s look at a rate of retirement of 15% at age 55. The number of exposures can only be those members who are age 55 and eligible for retirement at that time. Thus, they are considered “exposed” to that assumption. Finally, we calculate the A/E ratio, where "A" is the actual number (of retirements, for example) and "E" is the expected number. If the current assumptions were “perfect”, the A/E ratio would be 100%. When it varies much from this figure, it is a sign that a new assumption may be needed. (However, in some cases we prefer to set our assumptions to produce an A/E ratio a little above or below 100%, in order to introduce some conservatism.) Of course we not only look at the assumptions as a whole, but we also review how well they fit the actual results by gender, by age, and by service.

If the data leads the actuary to conclude that new tables are needed, the actuary may "graduate" or smooth the results, since the raw results can be quite uneven from age to age or from service to service.

Please bear in mind that, while the recommended assumption set represents our best estimate, there are other reasonable actuarial assumption sets that could be supported. Some reasonable assumption sets would show higher or lower liabilities or costs. For example, while our analysis may conclude that an overall 6.75% investment return assumption is appropriate, others might argue that a different rate is also appropriate.

Organization of Report

Section II summarizes our recommendations. Section III contains our findings and recommendations for each actuarial assumption. The impact of adopting our recommendations on liabilities and contribution rates is shown in Section IV. Section V discloses all of the actuarial assumptions and methods. Finally, tables summarizing the analysis of the assumptions are in Section VI. Appendix I provides the detail for the termination load and population decline assumption by City and Appendix II provides the impact on individual employer’s contribution rates.

Section VI Exhibits

The exhibits in Section VI should generally be self-explanatory. For example, on page VI-10, we show an exhibit analyzing the termination rates for members with 10 or more years of service. The second column shows the total number of members with at least 10 years of service who terminated during the study period. This excludes members who died, became disabled or retired. Column (3), labeled “Exposure Weighted by Salary” shows the total exposures of this group. This is the number of members who meet the criteria who could have terminated during any of the years. On this exhibit, the exposures exclude anyone eligible for unreduced retirement. A member is counted in each year they could have terminated, so the total shown is the total exposures for the ten-year period. Column (4) shows the probability of termination based on the raw data. That is, it is the result of dividing the actual number of terminations (col. 2) by the number exposed (col. 3).



5

Column (5) shows the current termination rate and column (6) shows the new recommended termination rate. Columns (7) and (8) show the expected numbers of terminations based on the current and proposed termination assumptions. Columns (9) and (10) show the Actual-to-Expected ratios under the current and proposed termination assumptions.

SECTION II S U M M A RY OF R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S


Section II Summary of Recommendations

7

Summary of Recommendations Our recommended changes to the current actuarial assumptions, and supporting rationale, may be summarized as follows: Economic Assumptions 1. Lower the inflation assumption from 3.00% to 2.50%. 2. Decrease nominal investment return assumption from 7.00% to 6.75%. Based on our analysis,

the expected arithmetic return based on the target asset allocation is 6.80% while the median expected geometric return over the next 20 years is 6.66%. (The Board has already voted to reduce the investment return assumption to 6.75% based on preliminary information provided before publication of this report).

3. Set the general wage inflation assumption at 3.00% (0.50% above inflation).

4. Modify the existing salary scale assumption based on recent trends and experience with an ultimate increase for long service members equal to 3.50%.

5. Make no changes to the current payroll growth rate assumption of 3.00%. The payroll growth assumption does not impact the liabilities, only the development of the amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. However, include a reduction for some cities based on patterns of population decline.

6. Reduce the assumed future cost-of-living increases in conjunction with the lower inflation assumption.

Mortality Assumptions (Valuation Purposes Only – No Impact on Annuity Purchase Rates)

7. Make no change to the current post-retirement mortality tables for non-disabled retirees.

8. Change the disabled post-retirement mortality assumption to be the same as the healthy tables,

except with a 3 year set-forward. In addition, add a 3% minimum mortality probability to reflect impaired mortality for this group.

9. Assume members who become disabled will choose a 50% Joint and Survivor payment option. 10. Update the pre-retirement mortality tables to be 50% of the post-retirement assumptions.


Section II Summary of Recommendations

8

Other Demographic Assumptions

11. Maintain the current retirement rates.

12. Reduce the rates of termination. Make small adjustments to the multipliers to the base rates based on job classification (police, fire, or other) and to the City specific multiplier as appropriate. Overall, these changes lower the expected number of terminations.

13. Decrease the forfeiture rates for vested members not eligible for retirement. 14. Reduce the rates of disability.

15. Make no change to the current 40% Partial Lump Sum assumption.

Actuarial Methods and Policies

16. Recommend no change to the use of a 10-year smoothing technique to determine the actuarial

value of assets, used for determining the annual employer contribution rates. However, add in a provision to ensure that the gain or loss from an individual year is fully recognized within 10 years.

17. Recommend no change to the use of a 15% “soft” corridor around the market value of assets when determining the actuarial value of assets.

18. Recommend continued use of the Entry Age Normal Cost Method. 19. Recommend continued use of closed amortization periods for experience gains and losses for

underfunded plans. However, we recommend the maximum period for new losses created after December 31, 2015, and especially benefit enhancements, be decreased to 25 years.

20. Recommend continued use of a 25-year open amortization policy for overfunded plans. In addition, once a plan reaches overfunded status, all prior closed non ad hoc bases are erased.

21. Recommend continued use of a 15 year level dollar amortization policy for ad hoc benefit enhancements but also recommend adding an additional provision that the amortization period will not exceed the remaining life expectancy of the group to ensure compliance with the new single discount rate test under the GASB provisions.

SECTION III A N A LY S I S OF E X P E R I E NC E A N D R E C O MM E N D AT I O N S


Section III Analysis of Experience and Recommendations

10

Analysis of Experience and Recommendations We will begin by discussing the economic assumptions: inflation, expenses, the investment return rate, the salary increase assumption, and the rate of payroll growth. Next are the demographic assumptions: mortality, disability, termination and retirement. Finally, we will discuss all of the actuarial methods used. I N F L A T I O N A N D I N V E S T M E N T R E T U R N A S S U M P T I O N S

Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOP) No. 27, Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations, provides guidance to actuaries regarding the selection of economic assumptions for measuring obligations for defined benefit plans. ASOP No. 27 was revised and adopted by the Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) in September 2013.

As no one knows what the future holds, it is necessary for an actuary to estimate possible future economic outcomes. Recognizing that there is not one right answer, the current standard calls for an actuary to develop a reasonable economic assumption. A reasonable assumption is one that:

a. is appropriate for the purpose of the measurement,

b. reflects the actuary’s professional judgment,

c. takes into account historical and current economic data that is relevant as of the measurement date,

d. is an estimate of future experience; an observation of market data; or a combination thereof,

e. and has no significant bias except when provisions for adverse deviation or plan provisions that are difficult to measure are included.

However, the standard explicitly advises an actuary not to give undue weight to recent experience.

Each economic assumption should individually satisfy this standard. Furthermore, with respect to any particular valuation, each economic assumption should be consistent with every other economic assumption over the measurement period. Generally, the economic assumptions are much more subjective in nature than the demographic assumptions.

I N F L A T I O N By “inflation,” we mean price inflation, as measured by annual increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This inflation assumption underlies most of the other economic assumptions, including the investment return, salary increases, and payroll growth rate. The current annual inflation assumption is 3.00%.



11

Actual Change in CPI-U

The chart below shows the average annual inflation, as measured by the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) in each of the ten consecutive five-year periods over the last fifty years.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U, all items, not seasonally adjusted, Calendar Years

The table below shows the average inflation over various periods, ending December 2014.

Periods Ending Dec. 2014 Average Annual Increase in CPI-U

Last five (5) years 1.69%

Last ten (10) years 2.12%

Last fifteen (15) years 2.25%

Last twenty (20) years 2.28%

Last twenty-five (25) years 2.52%

Last thirty (30) years 2.71%

Since 1913 (first available year) 3.17%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U, all items, not seasonally adjusted

3.86%

6.60%

8.12%

6.54%

3.67% 3.49%

2.37% 2.49% 2.56%

1.69%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014

Average Annual Inflation CPI-U, Five-Year Averages (December 31)

5-yr Avg. Increase



12

Forecasts from Investment Consulting Firms

Most of the investment consulting firms forecast inflation when setting their capital market assumptions. For instance TMRS’ investment consultant, RV Kuhns, is forecasting that the average inflation for the next 10-year period will be 2.5%. Of the eight used in our model, the average is 2.27% with a range of 2.1% to 2.5%. Each year, Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC conducts a survey of capital market assumptions that are developed by investment advisors. Their 2015 survey consisted of 29 investment advisors. Their report states that these investment advisors expect average annual inflation over the next 10 to 20 years to range from 1.70% to 2.80% with average of 2.23%.

Forecasts from Social Security Administration

In the Social Security Administration’s 2014 Trustees Report, the Office of the Chief Actuary is projecting a long-term average annual inflation rate of 2.70% under the intermediate cost assumption. (The low cost assumption was 2.00% and the high cost assumption was 3.40%.) The Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration reduced this assumption by 0.10% from the prior year and narrowed the spread between the low cost and high cost scenarios by 0.60%.

Expectations Implied in the Bond Market

Another source of information about future inflation is the market for U.S. Treasury bonds. The December 31, 2014 yield for a 20-year inflation indexed Treasury bond (20-year TIPS) was 0.68% plus actual inflation. The yield for a 20-year non-indexed U.S. Treasury bond was 2.47%. This means the bond market was predicting that inflation over the next twenty years would average 1.78% [(1 + 2.47%) / (1 + 0.68%) - 1] per year.

The chart on the following page shows the historical market implied inflation from January 1, 2010 through May 5, 2015.



13

As the chart shows, the bond market is predicting that average inflation for the years 20 through 30 will not be materially different than the average rate of inflation for the first 20 year period. The chart also shows that this measure can have short-term volatility, and implied inflation has noticeably decreased since July 2014.

Survey of Professional Forecasters

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve conducts a quarterly survey of the Society of Professional Forecasters. Their most recent forecast (first quarter of 2015) predicts inflation over the next ten years (2015 to 2024) will average 2.1% per year. The survey forecasts have also remained relatively stable over the last few years.

Comparison of Inflation Expectations from 2011 to 2015

Finally, the table below provides a comparison of the inflation expectations documented in the 2011 experience study report and the current inflation expectations.

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

1/2010 7/2010 1/2011 7/2011 1/2012 7/2012 1/2013 7/2013 1/2014 7/2014 1/2015

Market Implied Inflation - US Treasury Bond Market

Implied Inflation 20-yr Bonds Implied Inflation 30-Year Bonds

Inflation Expectations Source 2011 2015 Change

(1) (2) (3) (4) TMRS’ Investment Consultant1 2.50% 2.50% 0.00%

Implied Inflation 20-Year Treasuries 2.54% 1.78% -0.76%

Social Security Administration Trustees Report 2.80% 2.70% -0.10%

Survey of Professional Forecasters 2.20% 2.10% -0.10%



14

Recommendation As a result, we recommend lowering the inflation assumption to 2.50%. Since the System provides a cost-of-living adjustment that is tied to the increase in CPI, there is some risk to selecting an inflation assumption that is too low. While the 2.50% assumption is slightly higher than the expected rates of future inflation for many of the various sources above, including the bond market and the surveys of the Society of Professional Forecasters, it is equal to the assumption used by RVK (TMRS’ investment consultant). It is within a reasonable range of acceptable assumptions and represents a large decrease from the current assumption. I N V E S T M E N T A N D A D M I N I S T R A T I V E E X P E N S E S Since the trust fund pays expenses in addition to member benefits and refunds, we must make some assumption about these. Almost all actuaries treat investment expenses as an offset to the investment return assumption. That is, the investment return assumption represents expected return after payment of investment expenses.

In regards to investment expenses, investment consulting firms periodically issue reports that describe their capital market assumptions. The estimates for core investments (i.e., fixed income, equities, and real estate) are generally based on anticipated returns produced by passive index funds that are net of investment related fees. The investment return expectations for the alternative asset class such as private equity and hedge funds are also net of investment expenses. Therefore, we did not make any adjustments to account for investment related expenses. Some systems may also employ active management investment strategies that result in higher investment expenses compared to strategies that invest in passive index funds. We have assumed that active management strategies would result in the same returns, net of investment expenses, as passive management strategies.

On the other hand, there is a divergence of practice on the handling of administrative expenses. Some actuaries make an assumption that administrative expenses will be some fixed or increasing dollar amount, others assume that the administrative expenses will be some percentage of the plan’s actuarial liabilities or normal cost, and others treat administrative expenses like investment expenses, as an offset to the investment return assumption. Historical TMRS practice is to set the investment return assumption as the net return after payment of administrative expenses. Based on information from the 2014 CAFR, we have estimated administrative expenses to be 0.07% of assets. I N V E S T M E N T R E T U R N The investment return assumption is one of the principal assumptions used in any actuarial valuation of a retirement plan. It is used to discount future expected benefit payments to the valuation date in order to determine the liabilities of the plans. Even a small change to this assumption can produce significant changes to the liabilities and contribution rates. Currently (used in the 2014 valuation), it is assumed that future investment returns will average 7.00% per year, net of investment and administrative expenses.



15

Similar to the inflation assumption, past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance, even when averaged over a long time period. Also, the actual asset allocation of the trust fund will significantly impact the overall performance, so returns achieved under a different allocation are not meaningful. More importantly, the real rates of return for many asset classes, especially equities, vary so dramatically from year to year that even a twenty-year period is not long enough to provide reasonable guidance. There are strong reasons to believe the next twenty years will be different than the last twenty, in large part because current bond yields are significantly lower than they were 20 years ago.

Asset Allocation

We believe the most appropriate approach to selecting an investment return assumption is to identify expected returns given the funds’ asset allocation mapped to forward-looking capital market assumptions. Below is a summary of the recently approved long-term asset allocation for TMRS that was used in the analysis.

ASSET CLASS TMRS 50/50 Equity 35% Int. Duration Fixed Income 10% Non-Core Fixed Income 20% Global Linkers 0% Custom Real Return 10% Custom Real Estate 10% Diversified Hedge Funds 10% Private Equity 5% Cash Equivalents 0% Total 100.0%

Because GRS is a benefits consulting firm and does not develop or maintain our own capital market assumptions, we utilized the forward-looking return expectations developed by the following investment consulting firms:

• BNY Mellon • Hewitt EnnisKnupp • JP Morgan • New England Pension Consultants (NEPC) • Mercer Consulting • Pension Consulting Alliance (PCA)

• RV Kuhns • Towers Watson These investment consulting firms periodically issue reports that describe their capital market assumptions. That is, their estimates of expected returns, volatility, and correlations. While these assumptions are developed based upon historical analysis, many of these firms also incorporate forward-looking adjustments to better reflect near-term expectations.

When an analysis is performed to determine historical investment performance, calculating an average return based on a geometric basis is more appropriate for measuring the accumulation of wealth because it takes into account the return volatility (a.k.a. volatility drag). However, forecasting returns using a geometric average measure will generally result in a downwardly



16

biased measure, especially when used as it is in an actuarial valuation to estimate a future value of wealth. On the other hand, forecasting a return using a measure based on an arithmetic average tends to have an upward bias in forward-looking estimates. The following is the synopsis from a 2003 article on this subject in the Financial Analysts Journal:

An unbiased forecast of the terminal value of a portfolio requires compounding of its initial value at its arithmetic mean return for the length of the investment period. Compounding at the arithmetic average historical return, however, results in an upwardly biased forecast. This bias does not necessarily disappear even if the sample average return is itself an unbiased estimator of the true mean, the average is computed from a long data series, and returns are generated according to a stable distribution. In contrast, forecasts obtained by compounding at the geometric average will generally be biased downward. The biases are empirically significant. For investment horizons of 40 years, the difference in forecasts of cumulative performance can easily exceed a factor of 2. And the percentage difference in forecasts grows with the investment horizon, as well as with the imprecision in the estimate of the mean return. For typical investment horizons, the proper compounding rate is in between the arithmetic and geometric values. Geometric or Arithmetic Mean: A Reconsideration ©2003, Eric Jacquier, Alex Kane, and Alan J. Marcus

Because of these effects, we recommend developing a single best point estimate that is somewhere between these two averages. However, for risk management purposes, we would rather be closer to the geometric return than the arithmetic return.

The following table shows the expected nominal return (arithmetic average) for TMRS using each of the investment consulting firm’s capital market assumptions. The forward-looking return expectations were mapped to the target asset class allocation.

Expected Nominal Arithmetic Return for TMRS Based on Short-Term Capital Market Assumptions (Return Expectations for the Next 7 to 10 Years)

Note: The expected nominal return assumption is based on the arithmetic average.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1 5.86% 2.12% 3.74% 2.50% 6.24% 0.07% 6.17% 10.80%

2 6.56% 2.50% 4.06% 2.50% 6.56% 0.07% 6.49% 9.90%

3 6.70% 2.50% 4.20% 2.50% 6.70% 0.07% 6.63% 11.90%

4 6.35% 2.11% 4.24% 2.50% 6.74% 0.07% 6.67% 10.50%

5 6.46% 2.20% 4.26% 2.50% 6.76% 0.07% 6.69% 10.40%

6 6.55% 2.25% 4.30% 2.50% 6.80% 0.07% 6.73% 11.40%

7 6.98% 2.26% 4.72% 2.50% 7.22% 0.07% 7.15% 9.40%

8 7.66% 2.20% 5.46% 2.50% 7.96% 0.07% 7.89% 10.90%

Average 6.64% 2.27% 4.37% 2.50% 6.87% 0.07% 6.80% 10.65%

Standard Deviation

of Expected Return (1-Year)

Expected Nominal

Return Net of Expenses

(6)-(7)Investment Consultant

Investment Consultant

Expected Nominal Return


Inflation Assumption

Expected Real Return

(2)–(3)

Actuary Inflation

Assumption

Plan Incurred Expense

Assumption

Expected Nominal Return (4)+(5)



17

As can be seen from the previous Table, based on the 2015 capital market assumptions for investment consultant #1, the annual expected rate of return is 5.86%. Based on their inflation assumption of 2.12%, this implies an expected net real return of 3.74%. Adding the plan’s 2.50% inflation assumption and subtracting 0.07% for expenses gives a nominal expected return for TMRS of 6.17%. The overall 6.80% is the arithmetic average and becomes the top end of the range for our analysis. In addition to examining the expected one-year return, it is important to review anticipated volatility of the investment portfolio and to understand the range of net returns that could be produced by the investment portfolio. Therefore, the table below provides the 40th, 50th, and 60th percentiles of the 10-year geometric average of the expected nominal return, net of expenses, as well as the probability of exceeding the current 7.00% assumption.

Expected Annual Geometric Returns and Return Probabilities (Based on Short-Term Capital Market Assumptions)

However, the capital market assumptions provided by the investment consultants and used in the analysis above are based on 7 to 10 year investment horizon. Investment consultants develop their forecast assumptions with this time horizon in part because most pension investment management teams use this time period for developing and monitoring their investment strategies.

On the other hand, the investment return assumption used in the actuarial valuation has a much longer investment horizon. Therefore, it may be necessary to identify and reflect differences in the economy and financial markets over the short-term and long-term time horizon.

Expected investment returns can be thought of as the sum of a risk-free rate of return and a risk premium. This is the fundamental premise in the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) that is used in Modern Portfolio Theory. Riskier investments have a higher risk premium to

Probability of exceeding

40th 50th 60th 7.00% *

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 4.76% 5.61% 6.47% 34.2%

2 5.23% 6.02% 6.81% 37.7%

3 5.02% 5.96% 6.90% 39.0%

4 5.31% 6.14% 6.98% 39.8%

5 5.35% 6.18% 7.01% 40.1%

6 5.21% 6.11% 7.02% 40.3%

7 5.99% 6.73% 7.48% 46.4%

8 6.48% 7.34% 8.20% 53.9%

Average 5.42% 6.26% 7.11% 41.4%

*Plan's current return assumption net of expenses.


Distribution of 10-Year Average Geometric Net Nominal Return



18

compensate the investor for the increased uncertainty. Generally, the risk premium for each asset class is constant over long periods of time. But there can be differences in the risk-free return, depending on the investor’s time horizon. We define a risk-free investment as one where the expected return is known with absolute certainty. This also means that the risk-free investment has no default and reinvestment risk. Based on this definition, we believe it is reasonable to benchmark a risk-free rate using zero coupon U.S. Treasury securities. Thus a 10-year risk-free rate is equal to the current yield of a 10-year zero coupon US Treasury bond, and a 20-year zero coupon U.S. Treasury bond is the risk-free rate for a 20-year time horizon. For the longer-term point, we have chosen the 20-year yield because it is close to an approximation of the duration of the liabilities of the Systems, meaning the average, interest-discounted benefit payment is expected to be paid 20 years from the valuation date (assuming an open group). As of May 9, 2015, the yields of the 10-year and 20-year zero coupon Treasury bonds were 2.62% and 3.12%, respectively. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that as the investment time horizon expands from 10 years to 20 years, the risk free rate of return and corresponding expected nominal return on the portfolios would be 0.50% higher over the longer, 20-year time horizon.

Two investment consulting firms, Hewitt EnnisKnupp and NEPC, develop capital market assumptions with a 30-year investment horizon. One showed an increase of 0.26% in relation to the shorter term assumptions and the other 0.40%. Based on these three points, we have adjusted the return expectations by 0.40% and restated the analysis.

The table below provides the 40th, 50th, and 60th percentiles of the 20-year geometric average of the expected nominal return, net of expenses, as well as the probability of exceeding the current 7.00% assumption, based on the capital market assumptions adjusted to reflect the difference in the time horizons.

Expected Annual Geometric Returns and Return Probabilities (Based on Short-Term Capital Market Assumptions Adjusted By GRS to Reflect a 20-Year Investment Horizon)

Probability of exceeding

40th 50th 60th 7.00% *

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 5.41% 6.01% 6.62% 34.1%

2 5.86% 6.42% 6.98% 39.7%

3 5.69% 6.36% 7.02% 40.3%

4 5.95% 6.54% 7.14% 42.3%

5 5.99% 6.58% 7.16% 42.7%

6 5.87% 6.51% 7.16% 42.4%

7 6.61% 7.13% 7.66% 52.6%

8 7.13% 7.74% 8.35% 62.0%

Average 6.06% 6.66% 7.26% 44.5%

*Plan's current return assumption net of expenses.


Distribution of 20-Year Average Geometric Net Nominal Return



19

Based on this analysis, we recommend that TMRS lower its investment return assumption to 6.75%, which is comprised of a 4.25% net real return and a 2.50% inflation assumption. (The Board has already voted to reduce the investment return assumption to 6.75% based on preliminary information provided before publication of this report)

6.75% is below the 6.80% arithmetic average based on the average of the investment consulting firms analyzed. Also, while there is slightly less than a 50% likelihood of attaining a 6.75% investment return over the next 10 years, the probability is projected to be closer to 50% over a longer time horizon.

We believe this recommendation satisfies the best-estimate requirement under ASOP No. 27 as revised and adopted in September 2013. Also, this recommendation is consistent with the recommendations regarding the use of an investment return assumption that is estimated to be realizable at least 50% of the time from a report released by the Society of Actuaries Blue Ribbon Panel on public pension plan funding in February 2014.

G E N E R A L W A G E I N C R E A S E

The general wage increase assumption is the building block for the salary/payroll related assumptions. This assumption will be used as the year-to-year increase for each cohort of new entrant salaries in open group projections as well as the starting point for the payroll growth assumption which is used to project the growth in contributions.

Historically, general wage inflation almost always exceeds price inflation. This is because wage inflation is in theory the result of (a) price inflation, and (b) productivity gains being passed through to wages. For the last ten years, for the economy as a whole, wage inflation has outpaced price inflation by about 0.37%, and for the last thirty years, wage inflation has exceeded price inflation by about 0.78%. Since 1951, wage inflation has been about 1.00% a year larger than price inflation.

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

Last 10 Years Last 20 Years Last 30 Years Since 1951

Aver

age

Annu

al C

hang

e

National Change in Wages versus Inflation

Change in NAW Change in CPI



20

An interesting pattern has been that as inflation has decreased, so has the productivity passed on to employees. The impact of technology and globalization are apparent and will continue to be moving forward.

We are recommending a real general wage increase assumption of 0.50%, or nominally 3.00% when combined with the 2.50% inflation assumption.

S A L A R Y I N C R E A S E R A T E S

In order to project future benefits, the actuary must project future salary increases for individual members. Salaries may increase for a variety of reasons:

• Across-the-board increases for all employees; • Across-the-board increases for a given group of employees; • Increases to a minimum salary schedule; • Additional pay for additional duties; • Step or service-related increases; • Increases for acquisition of advanced degrees or specialized training; • Promotions; or • Merit increases, if available.

Our salary increase assumption is meant to reflect all of these types of increases.

The actuary should not look at the overall increases in payroll in setting this assumption, because payroll can grow at a rate different from the average pay increase for individual members. To analyze salary increases, we examine the actual increase in salary for each member who is active in two consecutive fiscal years.

Most actuaries recommend salary increase assumptions that include an element that depends on the member’s age or service, especially for large, public retirement systems. It is typical to assume larger pay increases for younger or shorter-service employees. This is done in order to reflect pay increases that accompany step increases, changes in job responsibility, promotions, demonstrated merit, etc. The experience shows salaries have been more closely correlated to service (rather than age), as promotions and productivity increases tend to be greater in the first few years of a career, even if the new employee is older than the average new hire.

The current assumption follows this pattern. The current salary increase rates vary by service for the first 10 years. They range from 12.00% for a new member’s first increase to 5.50% for members with 10 years of service. Age based rates are used for members with more than 10 years of service and vary from 5.25% for members under age 35 down to 3.50% for members age 65 and older. Our analysis shows the varying rates by age after the step-rate period is unnecessary, and instead a schedule only based on service, but with a longer service period (25 years in this case), is sufficient and less complicated.

We analyzed the salary increases based on the change in the member’s reported pay from one year to the next. That is, we looked at each member who appeared as an active member in two



21

consecutive valuations individually, and measured his/her salary increase. Then we grouped the increases for all members with the same service, and determined their average increase.

Salary increases for governmental employees can vary significantly from year to year. When the employer’s tax revenues stall or increase slowly, salary increases often are small or nonexistent. During good times, salary increases can be larger. Our experience across many governmental plans also shows several occasions in which salary increases will be low for a period of several years followed by a significant increase in one year. Therefore, for this assumption in particular, we prefer to use data over a longer period in establishing our assumptions. We used a nine-year period for this analysis because that was the amount of data available from the two most recent studies. The average pay increases for members active in both valuations with more than one year of service are as follows:

Period Increase Inflation Increase Above Inflation

CY 2005 to CY 2006 6.0% 3.2% 2.8% CY 2006 to CY 2007 8.4% 2.9% 5.5% CY 2007 to CY 2008 7.8% 3.8% 4.0% CY 2008 to CY 2009 6.7% -0.4% 7.1% CY 2009 to CY 2010 2.1% 1.6% 0.5% CY 2010 to CY 2011 3.7% 3.2% 0.5% CY 2011 to CY 2012 4.7% 2.1% 2.6% CY 2012 to CY 2013 5.5% 1.5% 4.0% CY 2013 to CY 2014 6.2% 1.6% 4.6%

Average 5.66% 2.03% 3.63%

The average increase is 5.66%, or 3.63% above inflation. The expected increase above inflation was 3.46%, meaning the actual increases have been slightly higher than expected on real terms when the difference in inflation has been removed. However, there is a lag between inflation and its impact on wages. Using a 1 year lag (using the period 2004-2013), inflation averaged 2.36% and thus the total increase over inflation would have been lower than assumed.

To separate the steps, or promotional component of the schedule, we segregated out members with more than 25 years of service. These members should be past the promotional and step portions of their careers and therefore, only receive the general increases granted. Using a one year lag for the inflation measurement, the actual real productivity increase during the nine year period was 1.22%, which shows there are merit and promotional increases even for long service employees.

However, the 1.22% is heavily driven by some rather large increases from 2004-2009, which we believe historically will be viewed as an outlier in public sector wage growth. Building on the 0.50% real wage growth assumption, we are recommending a long term individual productivity component, which is made up of general productivity, merit, and promotion, of 1.00%.

The net impact of the inflation assumption of 2.50% and a long service productivity component of 1.00% over inflation computes to 3.50% per year assumed salary increase for long service members.



22

The above exhibit models the portion of the salary increases for short term members that exceeded the salary increases for long term members based on the current assumptions, the actual experience, and a set of new proposed assumptions. You can see that the actual increases were pretty much in line with the assumption, except early in the pattern. We have changed the structure from age based to service based after 10 years of service, but after year 2 the overall level of the schedule was relatively unchanged.

Based on the new schedule, the cumulative increases from service 1 to 25 decreases approximately 0.61% per year. 0.50% of the decrease is due to the change in the inflation assumption and an additional 0.11% from the change in real wage/promotional growth. This would create a decrease in the normal cost and unfunded liability.

Additional results of the analysis regarding this assumption are provided in Section VI on page VI-1. P A Y R O L L G R O W T H R A T E The salary increase rates discussed above are assumptions applied to individuals. They are used in projecting future benefits. We also use a separate payroll growth assumption, currently 3.00%, to project the growth in revenue that can be anticipated since the contributions are received as a percentage of payroll. This is used in determining the charge needed to amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The amortization payments are calculated to be a level percentage of payroll, so as payroll increases over time, these charges do too. Thus, the amortization percentage is dependent on the rate at which payroll is assumed to increase. The starting point for this assumption should be the general wage increase assumption discussed above. The assumption can then be adjusted for anticipated change to population, which will impact the amount of payroll available to collect contributions, or the current demographics of the group, with younger

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Salary Increases Above Inflation By Service

Proposed Expected Actual



23

populations likely to have larger than average growth and older populations having slower than average growth. We are assuming the current demographics of TMRS cities in general will not have a material impact positively or negatively in comparison to the general wage increase in the general economy and thus our baseline payroll growth assumption will remain at 3.00%. We prefer to not anticipate membership growth in setting the payroll growth assumption. However, we do believe anticipated trends of population decline should be reflected. We compared the annual rate of change in membership from 2005 through 2014 for each employer. If an employer had a net overall decrease in membership during the last decade, we have discounted the payroll growth rate for that employer by half of the actual rate of annual decrease over the past decade, capped at a 1% reduction and rounded down to the nearest 0.1%. For example, if an employer had an average population decline of 0.64% per year, the reduction would be 0.64%/2=0.32%, rounded down to 0.30%. This reduction is only applied to Cities which are underfunded, overfunded cities use the 3.00% payroll growth rate unadjusted. This reduction will help ensure contributions as a percentage of payroll with not escalate if the population does not stabilize over the coming decade. For employers that have a relatively small unfunded liability, or a short amortization period, this reduction will not have a material impact. C O S T O F L I V I N G I N C R E A S E S A member city may elect to increase the annuities of its retirees, either annually or on an annually repeating basis, effective January 1 of a calendar year. Cities may adopt annuity increases at a rate equal to either 30%, 50%, or 70% of the increase (if any) in the Consumer Price Index — all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) between the December preceding the member’s retirement date and the December 13 months before the effective date of the increase, minus any previously granted increases. Consistent with the decrease in projected inflation, future anticipated COLAs are also expected to be lower and this will lower costs and liabilities for employers with those provisions. Please note that the formula for projecting future increases is not (1+CPI*70%)^N, and thus a 70% repeating COLA would not grow at 2.50% * 70% = 1.75% per year. The actual formula would be 1+[(1+CPI)^N-1]*70%, which will outpace the 1.75% above. Using a 60 year old retiree and the 2.50% inflation assumption, we have estimated the following annual increases for future COLA assumptions: 0.87% per year for the 30% CPI provision, 1.38% per year for the 50% CPI provision, and 1.86% per year for the 70% CPI provision.



24

P O S T - R E T I R E M E N T M O R T A L I T Y R A T E S ( L I A B I L I T Y A N D C O S T C A L C U L A T I O N S ) TMRS’ actuarial liabilities depend in part on how long retirees live. If members live longer, benefits will be paid for a longer period of time, and the liability will be larger. On December 31, 2013, we published a report which analyzed and made recommendations for the post-retirement mortality assumptions used for valuation purposes and for the annuity purchase factors used in determining member’s benefits. These recommendations included a generational approach to applying longevity assumptions. With only two more years of data, we stand by those recommendations and recommend no change to the current post-retirement mortality assumptions for healthy retirees. For disclosure, the A/E for healthy retirees for the four year period 2011 through 2014 was 99%.

D I S A B L E D M O R T A L I T Y R A T E S

This is a minor assumption as there are relatively few disability occurrences and TMRS disability benefits are not subsidized. We are recommending an updated assumption which will also be applied using a generational approach. The assumption for disabled members will be the same as healthy members, except a three year set-forward will be applied, meaning a member who is age 60 will be valued as if they are 63. In addition, a 3% minimum mortality rate will be applied to reflect the impairment for younger members that become disabled. Please refer to the exhibits on pages VI-4 and VI-5 for additional information. A C T I V E M O R T A L I T Y R A T E S This is another minor assumption with little impact on the employer contribution rates. We recommend utilizing 50% of the tables used for post-retirement healthy mortality, including the use of a generational approach for projecting future improvements in longevity. D I S A B I L I T Y R A T E S Disability is also a minor assumption. The results of the analysis are shown on page VI-8. The reconciliation process produced approximately 60 incidence of disability per year. However, analysis of the retiree data file as of December 31, 2014 indicates approximately 80 new disabled members per year. Thus, there is a lag created by processing the new disabilities (which is normal). Even with this lag accounted for, the actual number of disabilities has been much lower than assumed. We have recommended new unisex patterns with margin built in to reflect the lag in processing.



25

T E R M I N A T I O N R A T E S Termination rates reflect members who leave for any reason other than death, disability or service retirement. They apply whether the termination is voluntary or involuntary, and whether the member takes a refund or keeps his/her account balance on deposit in TMRS. The current termination rates are composed of two distinct assumptions, one for the first ten years of service called the “select” period and a separate assumption for terminations after the ten year period called the “ultimate.” The select assumption reflects the member’s age, service and sex, and we want to continue this practice. The ultimate assumption is based on the member’s time until retirement eligibility and gender, and we would also like to continue that practice. We have analyzed the two assumption periods separately. Probabilities are turned off once a member reaches retirement eligibility. Each employer has a multiplier applied to the base tables based on their own experience between 75% and 125% and an additional multiplier is applied based on the employment category of the member (Police, Fire, or Other Employees). We used nine years of data in the analysis. In addition, we have weighted the experience by salary, meaning instead of counting members and the portion of members that terminate, we have counted payrolls and the portion of the payroll that terminates. A higher paid member has more liability than a lower paid member, and thus the termination pattern for the higher paid member will have more impact on the future liabilities of the plan. Also, traditionally, higher paid members are hired into positions that have lower turnover versus lower paid members. Using salary weighting instead of count weighting made a 12% difference in the A/E for males and 7% for the females. The impact is largest in the first year, which has a material impact on the normal cost under the entry age normal funding method. Select Period This type of structure recognizes the fact that the turnover rates for a new member in their 20’s are much different than the turnover rates for a new member in their 40’s. The following exhibit provides the actual rates of termination by years of service for males in the TMRS population for two cohorts based on entry age. Notice that the overall turnover rate for the member hired at 45 is lower than the younger member. The difference in these two patterns result in 30% more members who are employed at age 45 reaching the end of the select period than the younger members.



26

Using a simple average among all members can overestimate the cost for the younger members and underestimate the cost for the older members. The larger the employer, the less difference there is between the using a structure by age as well versus service only since there will be a consistent number of members in each category. However, the smaller the employer gets, the more likely the population may not be as evenly spread out and therefore a mismatch can occur between the assumption and the actual experience. For the ultimate segment of this assumption, we use years until retirement eligibility as our grouping metric. Analysis has shown that the pattern of termination becomes highly correlated as members get closer to their retirement age. Traditionally, ultimate assumptions have been based on age, meaning that all members who are a given age and have more than 10 years of service will have the same termination rate. For some defined benefit retirement plans that are designed to base the retirement eligibility solely on age, this is typically a reasonable approach. However, for TMRS with the service only retirement eligibility, a 45 year old member with 18 years of service will likely have a lower probability of turnover than a 45 year old with 10 years of service as the former only has to work 2 more years to retire. Likewise a member age 58 with 12 years of service will have a lower probability of turnover than a 52 year old with 12 years of service, so service only can have a bias as well. The following exhibit provides the experience for males in the ultimate period measured by years until retirement.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Years of Service

Probability of Termination

Entry Age 25 Entry Age 45



27

Member Category As displayed in the following graph, actual experience shows that there are distinct differences in the termination patterns for the diverse three member groups within TMRS, especially for firefighters. Therefore, we will continue to have a structure with multipliers on the base tables based on the category of the individual member: Police, Fire, or Other.



28

We believe this structure provides for a more objective distinction in the termination pattern between employers than other structures which would apply the same pattern to all individual members. For example, some employers have separate pension plans for their firefighters, so their TMRS population is only Police and Other employees. This employer will likely have greater turnover than an employer that includes firefighters. Under the current structure, these two employers will have explicitly different assumed termination patterns because of the actual census data. Therefore, we are recommending the following multipliers (which are slightly different than the current) which will be applied to the base tables to determine the termination pattern for each member in the actuarial valuation based upon the category of that member:

Category Select Period Ultimate Period Police 88% 79% Fire 63% 52% Other 108% 115%

Employer Multiplier Generally, employers were ranked objectively based on a weighted A/E ratio. The ratio was determined by taking 1/3 of the A/E ratio during the select period and 2/3 of the A/E ratio during the ultimate period. The ultimate period was given a higher proportion because this segment of the termination assumption has a larger impact on the actuarial liability calculations. We limited this process by not allowing a multiplier for an employer to change from the current multiplier by more than 5%. If an employer ultimately needs to have their multiplier changed even further, the next experience study will allow for that transition to continue. In addition, we placed limits on the multiplier for smaller cities. Smaller cities experience higher turnover in general relative to larger cities. However, if an individual employer experiences very low turnover, the impact on the contribution rates will be substantially larger for smaller employers because there is less payroll over which to spread the losses. Moreover, to provide conservatism for small employers, we have not allowed the multiplier to be set higher than 115% for employers with less than 100 active members, 100% for employers with between 11 and 15 active members, 85% for employers with between 6 and 10 active members, and 75% for employers with less than 6 active members. Therefore, the final assumption applied to a specific member will be the base table loaded by the employer multiplier and the member category. For example, if the member’s age and service create a termination rate of 10% from the base table, the member is classified in the Police category (88% load), and the individual employer has a multiplier of 90%, then the termination decrement used in the valuation will be 10% * 88% * 90% = 7.9%.



29

Final Results Detailed analysis results are shown in Section VI on pages VI-9 & VI-10. In the aggregate, the current assumptions produce an A/E ratio of 95% during the select period and 93% during the ultimate period. For this assumption, A/E ratios over 100% are conservative. Based on our proposed recommended assumptions, the overall A/E is 101% and 102% during the ultimate period. Changes in this assumption will increase the liabilities and contribution requirements for most employers. F O R F E I T U R E R A T E S When a member leaves service after they are vested, they can elect to withdraw their member contributions, plus interest and forgo any employer match. For a cash balance plan, this can have material impact on the costs and liabilities. In the last experience study, we decreased the forfeiture rates for vested members not eligible for retirement and added a provision to base the rates on age rather than service and also introduced adjustments based on the employer match. The overall salary-weighted forfeiture rate over the study period was approximately 38% for members in cities with a 2-to-1 match which increased to almost 46% for members in cities with a 1-to-1 match. The new experience suggests the forfeiture rates need to be reduced further, especially for the few years before retirement eligibility. This is consistent with the lower expected earnings on investments as members will place more value on the guaranteed 5% return. This change will increase the normal cost and the liabilities for all employers. R E T I R E M E N T R A T E S We currently use rates of retirement that vary by age, gender, and entry age range. There is also a multiplier based on whether the employer provides a repeating COLA and the net level of the benefit. In most retirement systems with more typical defined benefit structures, an A/E ratio less than 100% is actually desired for conservatism since it is generally more valuable to the member to commence earlier rather than delay retirement to gain additional accruals. However, the cash balance design of TMRS makes the liabilities less sensitive to retirement patterns. Experience showed that 11,874 active members retired during the study period compared to 14,235 who were expected to retire resulting in an A/E ratio of 83%. An A/E ratio of 83% indicates a relatively good fit overall as shown on the following graph.



30

We are recommending no change to this assumption, including no changes to the current factors based on plan provisions. Additional details are shown on pages VI-12 through VI-14. O T H E R A S S U M P T I O N S There are other assumptions made in the course of an actuarial valuation, such as those listed below, and GRS believes that these are generally realistic, accurate and reasonable. Therefore, we are recommending only one change, as described below. 1. Valuation payroll (used for determining the amortization contribution rate): An exponential

average of the actual salaries paid during the prior fiscal years, with 33% weight given to the most recent year and 67% weight given to the expected payroll for the previous fiscal year, moved forward with one year’s payroll growth rate and adjusted for changes in population. (No change)

2. Individual salaries used to project benefits: For members with more than three years of service, actual salaries from the past three fiscal years are used to determine the USC final average salary as of the valuation date. For future salaries, this three-year average is

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Age

Actual Experience Present Assumptions Proposed Assumptions



31

projected forward with two years of salary scale to create the salary for the year following the valuation. This value is then projected with normal salary scales. (No change)

3. Timing of benefit payments: Benefit payments are assumed to be made in the middle of the month. Although TMRS benefits are paid at the end of the month, eligibility for that payment is determined at the beginning of the month. A middle of month payment approximates the impact of the combination of eligibility determination and actual payment timing. (No change)

4. Percent Married: 100% of employees are assumed to be married. (No change)

5. Members are assumed to take a Partial Lump Sum Distribution (PLSD) equal to 40% of their Employee Savings Fund (ESF) balance at retirement. Over the study period, retirees took PLSDs equal to approximately 39.6% of their total ESF balance, and this is very consistent with the current assumption of 40%. (No change)

6. Age difference: Male members are assumed to be three years older than their spouses, and

female members are assumed to be three years younger than their spouses. (No change)

7. Optional Forms: Healthy members are assumed to choose a life only benefit when they retire. (No change) Disabled members are assumed to select a 50% Joint and Survivor option when they retire (changed from life only).

8. Percent electing annuity on death (when eligible): For vested members not eligible for

retirement, 75% of the spouses of male members and 70% of the spouses of female members are assumed to commence an immediate benefit in lieu of a deferred annuity or a refund. Those not electing an immediate benefit are assumed to take a refund. All of the spouses of married participants who die after becoming eligible for a retirement benefit are assumed to elect an annuity that commences immediately. (No change)

9. Assumed age for commencement of deferred benefits: Members electing to receive a deferred

benefit are assumed to commence receipt at the maximum of age 60 or the age first eligible for retirement. (No change)

10. Administrative expenses: The assumed investment return rate represents the anticipated net

return after payment of all investment and administrative expenses. (No change)

A C T U A R I A L C O S T M E T H O D We recommend no change to the actuarial cost method. The actuarial cost method being used is known as the Entry Age Normal Actuarial Cost Method. The Entry Age Normal Actuarial Cost Method develops the annual cost of the Plan in



32

two parts: that attributable to benefits accruing in the current year, known as the normal cost, and that due to service earned prior to the current year, known as the amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The normal cost and the actuarial accrued liability are calculated individually for each member. The normal cost rate for an employee is the contribution rate which, if applied to a member’s compensation throughout their period of anticipated covered service with the municipality, would be sufficient to meet all benefits payable on their behalf. The normal cost is calculated using an entry age based on benefit service with the current city. If a member has additional time-only vesting service through service with other TMRS cities or other public agencies, they retain this for determination of benefit eligibility and decrement rates. The salary-weighted average of these rates is the total normal cost rate. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability reflects the difference between the portion of projected benefits attributable to service credited prior to the valuation date and assets already accumulated. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability is paid off in accordance with a specified amortization procedure outlined below. A M O R T I Z A T I O N P O L I C Y For “underfunded” cities with twenty or more employees, the amortization as of the valuation date is a level percentage of payroll over a closed period using the process of “laddering”. Bases that existed prior to a valuation continue to be amortized on their original schedule. New experience losses are amortized over individual periods of either 25 or 30 years. New gains (including lump sum contributions) are offset against and amortized over the same period as the current largest outstanding loss base for the specific City which in turn decreases contribution rate volatility.

Once a City reaches an “overfunded” status, all prior non ad hoc bases are erased and the surplus for overfunded cities is amortized over a 25 year open period.

Ad hoc benefit enhancements are amortized over individual 15 year periods using a level dollar policy.

For the purpose of determining the annual required contribution associated with the Supplemental Death Trust, the amortization of the UAAL is done using a 25 year open period. For future valuations, we recommend two changes: (1) the maximum period for any new base created after December 31, 2015 be no longer than 25 years and (2) the period used for ad hoc benefit enhancements be set to the minimum of (a) 15 years or (b) the remaining life expectancy of the group.



33

A C T U A R I A L A S S E T V A L U A T I O N M E T H O D Actuaries generally recommend using a smoothed actuarial value of assets (AVA), rather than market value (MVA), in order to dampen the fluctuations in measurements such as the funded status and the Actuarially Determined Employer Contribution (ADEC). Currently, the actuarial value of assets is based on the market value of assets with ten-year smoothing applied. This is accomplished by recognizing each year 10% of the difference between the market value of assets and the expected actuarial value of assets, based upon the assumed valuation rate of return. We continue to believe this method is appropriate. It does not distinguish between types of return (interest, dividends, realized gains/losses, and unrealized gains/losses), like some other methods. It treats different asset classes and different investment styles the same. We do not believe the method has a bias relative to market. In other words, we expect the ratio of the AVA to MVA to average about 100% over the very long term. We believe this method does a good job of smoothing asset gains and losses, and reduces fluctuations in the contribution rates. However, this specific method can take longer than 10 years to completely recognize a large event such as the 2008 financial crisis. We are recommending a small change to the method that would keep track of individual gains or losses in the past and ensure that they are recognized within the 10 year period if they are not offset by a gain or loss in a future valuation. This change would be added prospectively in conjunction with the next valuation and will have no material impact on this or any future valuation. The actuarial value of assets is further adjusted by 33% of any difference between the initial value and a 15% corridor around the market value of assets, if necessary. We recommend no change to this corridor as, based on modeling, a 10 year smoothing period requires a corridor to ensure proper funding in a timely manner. Currently, the AVA is determined for each individual employer based on the cash flows and asset levels of that employer. Going forward, we will do one System-wide calculation to determine the ratio of the smoothed value to the market value in aggregate and then apply that same ratio to each employer’s market value of assets to determine their actuarial (smoothed) value of assets.

SECTION IV A C T U A R I A L I M PA C T O F RE C O M M E N D AT I O N S


Section IV Actuarial Impact of Recommendations

35

Actuarial Impact of Recommendations (Based on the December 31, 2014 valuation)

Summary of System-wide Results ($ millions)

Current Proposed Difference(1) (2) (2) - (1)

1. Actuarial accrued liability (AAL)a. Actives and Inactives 15,749$ 15,791$ 42$ b. Annuitants 10,769 10,886 117c. Total AAL 26,518$ 26,677$ 159$

2. Actuarial value of assets 22,731 22,731 - 3. UAAL (1c - 2) 3,787$ 3,946$ 159$

4. Funded Ratio 85.7% 85.2% -0.5%5. UAAL/Payroll 70.5% 73.4% 2.9%

6. a. Normal cost 7.86% 8.30% 0.44%b. Prior service 4.77% 4.84% 0.07%c. Full retirement rate 12.63% 13.14% 0.51%


Section IV Actuarial Impact of Recommendations

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% >= 2%

New Assumption Compared to Current RatesCities With More Than 5 Contributing Members

SECTION V S U M M A RY OF N E W A S S UM P T I O N S


Section V Summary of New Assumptions

38

Summary of New Assumptions

I. Economic Assumptions

A. General Inflation – General Inflation is assumed to be 2.50% per year. B. Discount/Crediting Rates

1. System-wide Investment Return Assumption: 6.75% per year, compounded

annually, composed of an assumed 2.50% inflation rate and a 4.25% net real rate of return. This rate represents the assumed return, net of all investment and administrative expenses. This is the discount rate used to value the liabilities of the individual employers.

2. For the Supplemental Death Benefits Fund, the rate is 4.25% per year, compounded annually, and derived as a blend of 5.00% for the portion of the benefits financed by advance funding contributions and a short-term interest rate for the portion of the benefits financed by current contributions.

3. Assumed discount/crediting rate for Supplemental Disability Benefits Fund and

individual employee accounts: an annual rate of 5.00% for (1) accumulating prior service credit and updated service credit after the valuation date, (2) accumulating the employee current service balances, (3) determining the amount of the monthly benefit at future dates of retirement or disability, and (4) calculating the actuarial liability of the system-wide Supplemental Disability Benefits Fund.



39

C. Overall Payroll Growth – 3.00% per year, which is used to calculate the contribution rates for the retirement plan of each participating city as a level percentage of payroll. This represents the expected increase in total payroll. This increase rate is solely due to the effect of wage inflation on salaries, with no allowance for future membership growth. However, for cities with a decrease in the number of contributing members from 2005 to 2014, the payroll growth is decreased by half the annual percentage decrease in the count capped at a 1.0% decrease per year and rounded down to the nearest 0.1%.

D. Individual Salary Increases –

Salary increases are assumed to occur once a year, on January 1. Therefore, the pay used for the period year following the valuation date is equal to the reported pay for the prior year, increased by the salary increase assumption. Salaries are assumed to increase by the following graduated service-based scale.

Years of

Service Rate (%) 1 10.50% 2 7.00% 3 6.50% 4 6.25% 5 6.00% 6 5.50% 7 5.25%

8-10 4.75% 11 4.50%

12-13 4.25% 14-16 4.00% 17-24 3.75% 25 + 3.50%

E. Annuity Increase – The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is assumed to be 2.50% per

year prospectively. Annuity Increases, when applicable, are 30%, 50%, or 70% of CPI, according to the provisions adopted by each city. The actual future COLA assumptions are as follows: 0.87% per year for the 30% CPI provision, 1.38% per year for the 50% CPI provision, and 1.86% per year for the 70% CPI provision.



40

II. Demographic Assumptions

A. Termination Rates 1. For the first 10 years of service, the base table rates vary by gender, entry

age, and length of service. For each city the base table is then multiplied by 75% to 125%. A further multiplier is applied depending on an employee’s classification: 1) Fire – 63%, 2) Police – 88%, or 3) Other – 108%. A sample of the base rates follows: Males

Females

ServiceAge 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 920 0.2920 0.2623 0.2186 0.1932 0.1850 0.1673 0.1529 0.1243 0.1022 0.081625 0.2653 0.2269 0.1812 0.1554 0.1429 0.1267 0.1148 0.1006 0.0926 0.075730 0.2451 0.2052 0.1610 0.1322 0.1079 0.0998 0.0896 0.0774 0.0744 0.062135 0.2505 0.2070 0.1577 0.1265 0.1050 0.0994 0.0848 0.0719 0.0621 0.056740 0.2467 0.2060 0.1561 0.1213 0.1046 0.0943 0.0805 0.0710 0.0601 0.057745 0.2268 0.1934 0.1556 0.1220 0.1053 0.0926 0.0813 0.0711 0.0605 0.057550 0.2078 0.1731 0.1412 0.1149 0.1016 0.0887 0.0807 0.0716 0.0604 0.057855 0.2003 0.1668 0.1265 0.1074 0.0861 0.0864 0.0771 0.0682 0.0609 0.056060 0.1999 0.1542 0.1231 0.1060 0.0790 0.0868 0.0753 0.0683 0.0571 0.054965 0.2000 0.1463 0.1238 0.1063 0.0803 0.0867 0.0757 0.0700 0.0547 0.055170 0.2000 0.1477 0.1237 0.1063 0.0802 0.0867 0.0756 0.0697 0.0551 0.0551

ServiceAge 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 920 0.3030 0.2790 0.2221 0.2098 0.1997 0.2021 0.1536 0.1539 0.1564 0.157425 0.2782 0.2409 0.2067 0.1962 0.1710 0.1663 0.1369 0.1352 0.1186 0.112530 0.2574 0.2188 0.1949 0.1762 0.1347 0.1348 0.1276 0.1126 0.0973 0.080435 0.2424 0.2118 0.1805 0.1438 0.1273 0.1238 0.1112 0.1085 0.1000 0.076940 0.2244 0.1993 0.1614 0.1342 0.1295 0.1097 0.1023 0.0924 0.0834 0.073345 0.2191 0.1853 0.1427 0.1337 0.1054 0.1017 0.0894 0.0784 0.0705 0.072550 0.2201 0.1793 0.1347 0.1229 0.0886 0.0881 0.0823 0.0723 0.0675 0.061755 0.2200 0.1738 0.1350 0.1199 0.0834 0.0806 0.0713 0.0705 0.0685 0.055160 0.2200 0.1523 0.1350 0.1172 0.0798 0.0843 0.0646 0.0639 0.0429 0.037965 0.2200 0.1431 0.1350 0.1150 0.0800 0.0857 0.0667 0.0593 0.0276 0.028070 0.2200 0.1447 0.1350 0.1154 0.0800 0.0854 0.0664 0.0601 0.0303 0.0298



41

2. After 10 years of service, base termination rates vary by gender and by the number of years remaining until first retirement eligibility. For each city the base table is then multiplied by 75% to 125%. A further multiplier is applied depending on an employee’s classification: 1) Fire – 52%, 2) Police – 79%, or 3) Other – 115%. A sample of the base rates follows:

Years from Retirement Male Female

1 1.72% 2.20% 2 2.29% 2.97% 3 2.71% 3.54% 4 3.06% 4.01% 5 3.35% 4.41% 6 3.61% 4.77% 7 3.85% 5.10% 8 4.07% 5.40% 9 4.28% 5.68% 10 4.47% 5.94% 11 4.65% 6.19% 12 4.82% 6.43% 13 4.98% 6.66% 14 5.14% 6.87% 15 5.29% 7.08%

Termination rates end at first eligibility for retirement

B. Forfeiture Rates (Withdrawal of Member Deposits from TMRS) for vested members vary by age and employer match, and they are expressed as a percentage of the termination rates shown in (A). The withdrawal rates for cities with a 2-to-1 match are shown below. 4% is added to the rates for 1-1½-to-1 cities, and 8% is added for 1-to-1 cities.

Age

Percent of Terminating Employees Choosing to

Take a Refund 25 41.2% 30 41.2% 35 41.2% 40 38.0% 45 32.6% 50 27.1% 55 21.7%

Forfeiture rates end at first eligibility for retirement.



42

C. Service Retirees and Beneficiary Mortality Rates

For calculating the actuarial liability and the retirement contribution rates, the Gender-distinct RP2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Tables with Blue Collar Adjustment are used with male rates multiplied by 109% and female rates multiplied by 103%. The rates are projected on a fully generational basis by scale BB to account for future mortality improvements.

D. Disabled Annuitant Mortality Rates

For calculating the actuarial liability and the retirement contribution rates, the Gender-distinct RP2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Tables with Blue Collar Adjustment are used with male rates multiplied by 109% and female rates multiplied by 103% with a 3 year set-forward for both males and females. In addition, a 3% minimum mortality rate will be applied to reflect the impairment for younger members who become disabled. The rates are projected on a fully generational basis by scale BB to account for future mortality improvements subject to the 3% floor.

E. Pre-Retirement Mortality

For calculating the actuarial liability and the retirement contribution rates, the Gender-distinct RP2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Tables with Blue Collar Adjustment are used with male rates multiplied by 54.5% and female rates multiplied by 51.5%. The rates are projected on a fully generational basis by scale BB to account for future mortality improvements.

F. Annuity Purchase Rates

For determining the amount of the monthly benefit at the time of retirement for both healthy and disabled annuitants, the annuity purchase rates (APRs) for 2014 are based on the UP-1984 Table with an age setback of two years for retirees and an age setback of eight years for beneficiaries. Beginning in 2027 the APRs will be based on a unisex blend of the RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Tables with Blue Collar Adjustment for males and females with both male and female rates multiplied by 107.5% and projected on a fully generational basis with scale BB. For members, a unisex blend of 70% of the males table and 30% of the female table is used, while 30% of the male table and 70% of the female table is used for beneficiaries. From 2015 through 2026, the fully generational APRs will be phased into.



43

G. Disability Rates

Age Males & Females

20 0.000004 25 0.000025 30 0.000099 35 0.000259 40 0.000494 45 0.000804 50 0.001188 55 0.001647 60 0.002180 65 0.002787

H. Service Retirement Rates, applied to both Active and Inactive Members

The base table rates vary by gender, entry age group, and age. These rates are adjusted then multiplied by 2 factors based on 1) employee contribution rate and employer match and 2) if the city has a recurring COLA. Males Females Entry Age Groups Entry Age Groups Ages 32 Ages Ages 48 Ages 32 Ages Ages 48

Age & Under 33 - 47 & Over & Under 33 - 47 & Over 40-44 0.06 - - 0.06 - - 45-49 0.06 - - 0.06 - - 50-52 0.08 - - 0.08 - -

53 0.08 0.10 - 0.08 0.10 - 54 0.08 0.10 - 0.11 0.10 -

55-59 0.14 0.10 - 0.11 0.10 - 60 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.10 61 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.20 62 0.32 0.25 0.12 0.28 0.17 0.12 63 0.32 0.23 0.12 0.28 0.17 0.12 64 0.32 0.35 0.20 0.28 0.22 0.20 65 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.27 0.20

66-69 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.17 70-74 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.25 75 and over 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Note: For cities without a 20-year/any age retirement provision, the rates for entry ages 32 and under are loaded by 20% for ages below 60.



44

Plan Design Factors Applied to Base Retirement Rates

Employee Contribution Rate Employer Match 5% 6% 7%

1 - 1 0.75 0.80 0.84 1.5 - 1 0.81 0.86 0.92 2 - 1 0.86 0.93 1.00

Recurring COLA: 100% No Recurring COLA: 90%

III. Methods and Assumptions

A. Valuation of Assets – The actuarial value of assets is based on the market value of assets with a ten-year phase-in of actual investment return in excess of (less than) expected investment income. Offsetting unrecognized gains and losses are immediately recognized, with the shortest remaining bases recognized first and the net remaining bases continue to be recognized on their original timeframe. The actuarial value of assets is further adjusted by 33% of any difference between the initial value and a 15% corridor around the market value of assets, if necessary.

B. Actuarial Cost Method: The actuarial cost method being used is known as the

Entry Age Normal Actuarial Cost Method. The Entry Age Normal Actuarial Cost Method develops the annual cost of the Plan in two parts: that attributable to benefits accruing in the current year, known as the normal cost, and that due to service earned prior to the current year, known as the amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The normal cost and the actuarial accrued liability are calculated individually for each member. The normal cost rate for an employee is the contribution rate which, if applied to a member’s compensation throughout their period of anticipated covered service with the municipality, would be sufficient to meet all benefits payable on their behalf. The normal cost is calculated using an entry age based on benefit service with the current city. If a member has additional time-only vesting service through service with other TMRS cities or other public agencies, they retain this for determination of benefit eligibility and decrement rates. The salary-weighted average of these rates is the total normal cost rate. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability reflects the difference between the portion of projected benefits attributable to service credited prior to the valuation date and assets already accumulated. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability is paid off in accordance with a specified amortization procedure outlined in C below.

C. Amortization Policy: For “underfunded” cities with twenty or more employees, the

amortization as of the valuation date is a level percentage of payroll over a closed



45

period using the process of “laddering”. Bases that existed prior to this valuation continue to be amortized on their original schedule. Beginning January 1, 2016, all new experience losses are amortized over individual periods of not more than 25 years. Previously, some cities amortized their losses over a 30 year period. New gains (including lump sum contributions) are offset against and amortized over the same period as the current largest outstanding loss base for the specific City which in turn decreases contribution rate volatility.

Once a City reaches an “overfunded” status, all prior non ad hoc bases are erased

and the surplus for overfunded cities is amortized over a 25 year open period. Ad hoc benefit enhancements are amortized over individual periods using a level

dollar policy. The period will be based on the minimum of 15 years or the current life expectancy of the covered group.

For the December 31, 2013 actuarial valuation, there was a one-time change in the

amortization policy for underfunded cities implemented in conjunction with the changes to the assumptions and cost method to minimize rate volatility associated with these changes. An initial ARC was developed using the methodology described above. For cities with a decrease in the rate compared to the rate calculated prior to changes, the amortization period for all non-ad hoc bases was shortened enough to keep the rates stable (if possible). Cities with an increase of more than 0.50% were allowed to extend the amortization periods for non-ad hoc bases up to 30 years to keep the full contribution rate from increasing. For cities with an increase of 0.50% or less, the amortization periods for all non-ad hoc bases could be extended to 25 years to keep the rate from increasing. The amortization period calculated in the prior steps was then rounded up to the nearest integer to calculate the final full contribution rate.

For the purpose of determining the annual required contribution associated with the

Supplemental Death Trust, the amortization of the UAAL is done using a 25 year open period.

D. Small City Methodology – For cities with fewer than twenty employees, more

conservative methods and assumptions are used. First, lower termination rates are used for smaller cities, with maximum multipliers of 75% for employers with less than 6 members, 85% for employers with 6 to 10 members, 100% for employers with 11 to 15 members, and 115% for employers with less than 100 members.

There is also a load on the life expectancy for employers with less than 15 active

members. The life expectancy will be loaded by decreasing the mortality rates by 1% for every active member less than 15. For example, an employer with 5 active members will have the baseline mortality tables multiplied by 90% (10 active



46

members times 1%). For underfunded plans, the maximum amortization period for amortizing gains and

losses is decreased from current levels by 1 year for each active member less than the 20 member threshold. For example, an employer with 8 active members and a current maximum amortization period of 25 will use (25-(20-8)) = 13 year amortization period for the gain or loss in that year’s valuation. Under this policy, the lowest amortization period will be 25-(20-1) = 6 years. Once the plan is overfunded, the amortization period will revert back to the standard 25 years.

E. Supplemental Death Benefit – The contribution rate for the Supplemental Death

Benefit (SDB) is equal to the expected benefit payments during the upcoming year divided by the annualized pay of current active members and is calculated separately for actives and retirees. Due the significant reserve in the Supplemental Death Trust, the SDB rate for retiree coverage is currently only one-third of the total term cost.

IV. Other Assumptions

1. Valuation payroll (used for determining the amortization contribution rate): An exponential average of the actual salaries paid during the prior fiscal years, with 33% weight given to the most recent year and 67% weight given to the expected payroll for the previous fiscal year, moved forward with one year’s payroll growth rate and adjusted for changes in population.

2. Individual salaries used to project benefits: For members with more than three years of service, actual salaries from the past three fiscal years are used to determine the USC final average salary as of the valuation date. For future salaries, this three-year average is projected forward with two years of salary scale to create the salary for the year following the valuation. This value is then projected with normal salary scales.

3. Timing of benefit payments: Benefit payments are assumed to be made in the middle of the month. Although TMRS benefits are paid at the end of the month, eligibility for that payment is determined at the beginning of the month. A middle of month payment approximates the impact of the combination of eligibility determination and actual payment timing.

4. Percent married: 100% of the employees are assumed to be married.

5. Age difference: Male members are assumed to be three years older than their spouses, and female members are assumed to be three years younger than their spouses.



47

6. Optional Forms: Healthy members are assumed to choose a life only benefit when they retire. Disabled members are assumed to select a 50% Joint and Survivor option when they retire.

7. Percent electing annuity on death (when eligible): For vested members not eligible for retirement, 75% of the spouses of male members and 70% of the spouses of female members are assumed to commence an immediate benefit in lieu of a deferred annuity or a refund. Those not electing an immediate benefit are assumed to take a refund. All of the spouses of married participants who die after becoming eligible for a retirement benefit are assumed to elect an annuity that commences immediately.

8. Partial Lump Sum Utilization: It is assumed that each member at retirement will

withdraw 40% of their eligible account balance.

9. Inactive Population: All non-vested members of a city are assumed to take an immediate refund if they are not contributing members in another city. Vested members not contributing in another city are assumed to take a deferred retirement benefit, except for those who have terminated in the past 12 months for whom one year of forfeiture probability is assumed. The forfeiture rates for inactive members of a city who are contributing members in another city are equal to the probability of termination multiplied by the forfeiture rates shown in II(A) and II(B) respectively. These rates are applied each year until retirement eligibility. Once a member is retirement eligible, they are assumed to commence benefits based on the service retirement rates shown in II(H).

10. There will be no recoveries once disabled.

11. No surviving spouse will remarry and there will be no children’s benefit.

12. Decrement timing: Decrements of all types are assumed to occur mid-year.

13. Eligibility testing: Eligibility for benefits is determined based upon the age nearest birthday and service nearest whole year on the date the decrement is assumed to occur.

14. Decrement relativity: Decrement rates are used directly from the experience study, without adjustment for multiple decrement table effects.

15. Incidence of Contributions: Contributions are assumed to be received continuously throughout the year based upon the computed percent of payroll shown in this report, and the actual payroll payable at the time contributions are made.



48

16. Benefit Service: All members are assumed to accrue 1 year of eligibility service each year.

17. The decrement rates for service related decrements are based on total TMRS eligibility service.

V. Participant Data

Participant data was supplied in electronic text files. There were separate files for (i) active and inactive members, and (ii) members and beneficiaries receiving benefits.

The data for active members included birthdate, gender, service with the current city and total vesting service, salary, employee contribution account balances, as well as the data used in the next calculation of the Updated Service Credit (USC). For retired members and beneficiaries, the data included date of birth, gender, spouse's date of birth (where applicable), amount of monthly benefit, date of retirement, form of payment code, and aggregate increase in the CPI that will be used in the next calculation of the cost of living adjustment.

To the extent possible we have made use of all available data fields in the calculation of the liabilities stated in this report. Actual CPI is used to model the wear-away effect or “catch-up” when a city changes its COLA provisions. Adjustments are made for members who have service both in a city with “20 and out” retirement eligibility and one that hasn’t adopted it to calculate the earliest possible retirement date.

Salary supplied for the current year was based on the annualized earnings for the year preceding the valuation date.

Assumptions were made to correct for missing, bad, or inconsistent data. These had no material impact on the results presented.

SECTION VI S U M M A RY OF D ATA A N D E X P E R I E N C E


Section VI Summary of Data and Experience

50

List of Tables

SALARY EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................................................ VI-1

POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR NON-DISABLED MALE RETIREES .........................VI -2

POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR NON-DISABLED FEMALE RETIREES .....................VI -3

POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR DISABLED MALE RETIREES .................................VI -4

POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR DISABLED FEMALE RETIREES ..............................VI -5

PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR ACTIVE MALES ......................................................VI -6

PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY EXPERIENCE FOR ACTIVE FEMALES ..................................................VI -7

DISABILITY EXPERIENCE FOR ACTIVE MALES ...................................................................................VI -8

SERVICE BASED TERMINATION EXPERIENCE ALL EMPLOYEES ..........................................................VI -9

ULTIMATE TERMINATION RATES ALL EMPLOYEES ......................................................................... VI -10

REFUND EXPERIENCE ALL EMPLOYEES .......................................................................................... VI -11

MALE RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................... VI -12

FEMALE RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................ VI -13

RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE BY PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT .................................................................. VI -14



VI-1

SALARY EXPERIENCE

Current Salary Scale Proposed Salary ScaleYears of Step Rate/ Above Step Rate/ Step Rate/Service Total Promotional Total Inflation Promotional Total Promotional

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1 12.00% 7.92% 11.51% 9.15% 7.93% 10.50% 7.00%2 9.00% 4.92% 7.13% 4.77% 3.55% 7.00% 3.50%3 7.00% 2.92% 6.61% 4.26% 3.04% 6.50% 3.00%4 7.00% 2.92% 6.13% 3.77% 2.56% 6.25% 2.75%5 6.00% 1.92% 5.90% 3.54% 2.32% 6.00% 2.50%6 6.00% 1.92% 5.50% 3.15% 1.93% 5.50% 2.00%7 5.50% 1.42% 5.12% 2.76% 1.54% 5.25% 1.75%8 5.50% 1.42% 4.98% 2.62% 1.40% 4.75% 1.25%9 5.50% 1.42% 4.86% 2.51% 1.29% 4.75% 1.25%10 5.50% 1.42% 4.79% 2.43% 1.21% 4.75% 1.25%11 4.66% 0.58% 4.55% 2.20% 0.98% 4.50% 1.00%12 4.62% 0.54% 4.42% 2.06% 0.84% 4.25% 0.75%13 4.61% 0.52% 4.24% 1.88% 0.66% 4.25% 0.75%14 4.55% 0.47% 4.21% 1.86% 0.64% 4.00% 0.50%15 4.50% 0.42% 4.14% 1.79% 0.57% 4.00% 0.50%16 4.49% 0.40% 4.08% 1.72% 0.50% 4.00% 0.50%17 4.43% 0.34% 4.01% 1.65% 0.43% 3.75% 0.25%18 4.38% 0.30% 3.90% 1.55% 0.33% 3.75% 0.25%19 4.35% 0.27% 3.81% 1.45% 0.23% 3.75% 0.25%20 4.33% 0.25% 3.82% 1.46% 0.24% 3.75% 0.25%21 4.31% 0.23% 3.97% 1.61% 0.39% 3.75% 0.25%22 4.28% 0.19% 3.72% 1.36% 0.14% 3.75% 0.25%23 4.26% 0.17% 3.80% 1.44% 0.22% 3.75% 0.25%24 4.24% 0.15% 3.85% 1.49% 0.28% 3.75% 0.25%25 4.08% 0.00% 3.58% 1.22% 0.00% 3.50% 0.00%

Current Inflation Assumption 3.00% Proposed Inflation Assumption 2.50%Current Productivity Component 1.08% Proposed Productivity Component 1.00%Actual CPI-U Inflation for 2004 - 2013 2.36%Apparent Productivity Component 1.22%

2005 - 2014 Actual Experience



VI-2

*Columns may not add due to rounding. *Columns (5) and (6) represent the rate at the age mid-point for the quintile group

NON-DISABLED RETIREESPOST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY - MALES

WEIGHTED BY AMOUNT OF ANNUITY

Assumed Rate Expected Deaths Actual / ExpectedActual Total Actual Current Proposed

Age Deaths Count Rate Current Proposed Current Proposed (2) / (7) (2) / (8)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

50-54 1,127,486 194,550,850 0.0058 0.0031 0.0031 636,484 636,484 177% 177%55-59 2,704,971 396,679,349 0.0068 0.0058 0.0058 2,393,697 2,393,697 113% 113%60-64 6,059,558 582,199,458 0.0104 0.0105 0.0105 6,268,725 6,268,725 97% 97%65-69 7,747,225 502,446,819 0.0154 0.0180 0.0180 8,930,313 8,930,313 87% 87%70-74 8,479,391 325,646,389 0.0260 0.0293 0.0293 9,489,306 9,489,306 89% 89%75-79 9,670,798 212,765,781 0.0455 0.0479 0.0479 10,091,472 10,091,472 96% 96%80-84 9,442,670 111,854,869 0.0844 0.0785 0.0785 8,542,941 8,542,941 111% 111%85-89 5,823,390 40,844,064 0.1426 0.1276 0.1276 5,005,268 5,005,268 116% 116%90-94 2,373,380 9,583,952 0.2476 0.2070 0.2070 1,887,594 1,887,594 126% 126%95-99 333,070 1,036,456 0.3214 0.3115 0.3115 296,782 296,782 112% 112%100 + 16,771 29,961 0.5598 0.3955 0.3955 11,186 11,186 150% 150%Totals 53,778,711 2,377,637,950 53,553,768 53,553,768 100% 100%

Male + Females 65,141,795 3,090,052,103 65,955,471 65,955,471 99% 99%



VI-3


NON-DISABLED RETIREESPOST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY - FEMALES




50-54 207,674 58,549,459 0.0035 0.0022 0.0022 133,801 133,801 155% 155%55-59 371,280 101,535,884 0.0037 0.0034 0.0034 336,653 336,653 110% 110%60-64 1,143,896 151,021,085 0.0076 0.0067 0.0067 962,145 962,145 119% 119%65-69 1,446,464 159,743,585 0.0091 0.0131 0.0131 1,867,508 1,867,508 77% 77%70-74 1,663,235 111,448,723 0.0149 0.0229 0.0229 2,270,222 2,270,222 73% 73%75-79 1,682,214 67,527,162 0.0249 0.0367 0.0367 2,202,639 2,202,639 76% 76%80-84 1,748,590 37,771,468 0.0463 0.0598 0.0598 1,995,690 1,995,690 88% 88%85-89 1,681,632 17,992,088 0.0935 0.1017 0.1017 1,597,354 1,597,354 105% 105%90-94 1,137,076 5,699,638 0.1995 0.1594 0.1594 808,618 808,618 141% 141%95-99 256,889 1,053,277 0.2439 0.2138 0.2138 209,327 209,327 123% 123%100 + 24,135 71,784 0.3362 0.2529 0.2529 17,746 17,746 136% 136%Totals 11,363,084 712,414,153 12,401,703 12,401,703 92% 92%



VI-4


DISABLED RETIREESPOST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY - MALES




50-54 128,005 5,026,738 0.0255 0.0253 0.0300 129,435 150,802 99% 85%55-59 270,642 8,375,060 0.0323 0.0304 0.0300 259,800 251,252 104% 108%60-64 359,423 9,134,771 0.0393 0.0360 0.0300 336,063 274,043 107% 131%65-69 466,213 8,347,707 0.0558 0.0436 0.0300 369,057 250,431 126% 186%70-74 390,284 5,850,659 0.0667 0.0555 0.0392 322,607 225,115 121% 173%75-79 288,654 3,613,563 0.0799 0.0737 0.0641 266,169 233,445 108% 124%80-84 248,601 1,654,447 0.1503 0.0975 0.1046 156,946 165,947 158% 150%85-89 80,831 419,589 0.1926 0.1242 0.1735 51,518 70,027 157% 115%90-94 21,507 152,005 0.1415 0.1733 0.2631 24,945 38,462 86% 56%95-99 2,981 14,853 0.2007 0.2399 0.3623 3,525 5,340 85% 56%100 + 3,655 14,220 0.2571 0.2973 0.4337 4,150 6,062 88% 60%Totals 2,260,796 42,603,610 1,924,215 1,670,926 117% 135%

Male + Females 2,674,103 55,532,496 2,258,773 2,112,609 118% 127%



VI-5


DISABLED RETIREESPOST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY - FEMALES




50-54 61,929 1,954,501 0.0317 0.0108 0.0300 22,579 58,635 274% 106%55-59 35,067 2,912,293 0.0120 0.0149 0.0300 45,610 87,369 77% 40%60-64 63,557 2,582,909 0.0246 0.0193 0.0300 52,700 77,487 121% 82%65-69 101,130 2,494,701 0.0405 0.0251 0.0300 65,231 74,841 155% 135%70-74 23,055 1,356,815 0.0170 0.0343 0.0305 48,294 41,212 48% 56%75-79 56,317 868,501 0.0648 0.0476 0.0483 42,475 36,576 133% 154%80-84 17,571 510,291 0.0344 0.0658 0.0821 34,818 36,599 50% 48%85-89 50,955 235,026 0.2168 0.0916 0.1350 21,025 26,498 242% 192%90-94 1,388 11,512 0.1206 0.1279 0.1902 1,462 1,956 95% 71%95-99 2,338 2,338 1.0000 0.1722 0.2345 364 510 643% 458%100 + 0 0 N/A 0.2036 0.2854 0 0 N/A N/ATotals 413,307 12,928,886 334,558 441,683 124% 94%



VI-6


MALE PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY



Under 20 0 313 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 - - N/A N/A20-24 0 9,412 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 2 2 0% 0%25-29 2 27,047 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 7 6 29% 33%30-34 6 37,736 0.0002 0.0004 0.0005 13 17 46% 35%35-39 8 42,995 0.0002 0.0006 0.0007 22 27 36% 30%40-44 20 47,982 0.0004 0.0009 0.0008 37 38 54% 53%45-49 41 46,644 0.0009 0.0012 0.0011 53 50 77% 82%50-54 60 44,227 0.0014 0.0017 0.0016 74 70 81% 86%55-59 77 33,170 0.0023 0.0025 0.0031 87 96 89% 80%60-64 78 19,036 0.0041 0.0045 0.0059 92 97 85% 80%65-69 34 5,668 0.0060 0.0084 0.0107 49 48 69% 71%70-74 6 1,448 0.0041 0.0155 0.0175 23 21 26% 29%

75 and over 6 0 N/A 0.0261 0.0287 - - N/A N/ATotals 338 315,678 459 472 74% 72%

Male + Females 445 447,394 624 613 71% 73%



VI-7


FEMALE PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY



Under 20 0 161 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 - - N/A N/A20-24 0 3,103 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 - - N/A N/A25-29 0 9,987 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 1 1 0% 0%30-34 5 14,010 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 3 3 167% 167%35-39 2 15,875 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 5 5 40% 40%40-44 5 18,371 0.0003 0.0005 0.0006 9 10 56% 50%45-49 11 19,047 0.0006 0.0008 0.0008 15 15 73% 73%50-54 23 19,978 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 24 22 96% 105%55-59 18 16,394 0.0011 0.0019 0.0017 32 27 56% 67%60-64 27 10,441 0.0026 0.0034 0.0035 42 31 64% 87%65-69 9 3,507 0.0026 0.0066 0.0068 24 19 38% 47%70-74 5 842 0.0059 0.0120 0.0119 10 8 50% 63%

75 and over 2 0 N/A 0.0203 0.0190 - - N/A N/ATotals 107 131,716 165 141 65% 76%



VI-8


MALE AND FEMALE DISABILITY EXPERIENCE

Assumed Rate Expected Disabilities Actual / ExpectedActual Total Actual Current Proposed

Age Disabilities Count Rate Current Proposed Current Proposed (2) / (7) (2) / (8)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Under 20 0 688 0.0000 - 0.0000 0 0 N/A N/A20-24 0 19,468 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 1 0 0% N/A25-29 2 51,085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 3 100% 67%30-34 9 62,628 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 8 10 113% 90%35-39 23 66,257 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 24 23 96% 100%40-44 29 72,615 0.0004 0.0008 0.0006 57 45 51% 64%45-49 53 70,825 0.0007 0.0014 0.0009 100 67 53% 79%50-54 65 68,795 0.0009 0.0022 0.0014 151 94 43% 69%55-59 90 52,942 0.0017 0.0031 0.0019 166 97 54% 93%60-64 18 31,292 0.0006 0.0035 0.0024 111 74 16% 24%65-69 3 9,765 0.0003 0.0035 0.0031 34 29 9% 10%70-74 3 2,485 0.0012 0.0036 0.0038 9 9 33% 33%

75 and over 0 840 0.0000 0.0036 0.0045 3 4 0% 0%Totals 295 509,685 666 455 44% 65%



VI-9

*Columns may not add due to rounding.

ALL EMPLOYEES SELECT TERMINATION EXPERIENCE

WEIGHTED BY SALARYTerminations ExposureWeighted by Weighted by Crude

Service Salary Salary Rates Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 $ 189,016,643 $ 759,433,310 0.2489 0.2792 0.2482 $ 212,002,718 $ 188,528,456 89% 100%2 541,917,934 2,600,923,669 0.2084 0.2183 0.2090 567,658,762 543,535,652 95% 100%3 393,714,535 2,367,085,291 0.1663 0.1728 0.1652 408,914,955 391,004,173 96% 101%4 283,156,743 2,056,476,993 0.1377 0.1419 0.1367 291,760,645 281,077,713 97% 101%5 219,539,676 1,914,102,731 0.1147 0.1217 0.1124 233,032,500 215,163,450 94% 102%6 187,154,189 1,803,097,740 0.1038 0.1088 0.1033 196,185,383 186,340,654 95% 100%7 161,735,495 1,763,898,095 0.0917 0.0970 0.0904 171,098,771 159,467,197 95% 101%8 135,376,509 1,668,851,412 0.0811 0.0864 0.0789 144,169,649 131,617,125 94% 103%9 111,255,405 1,567,655,184 0.0710 0.0771 0.0693 120,914,625 108,670,179 92% 102%10 92,115,897 1,461,373,260 0.0630 0.0691 0.0611 101,022,153 89,254,626 91% 103%

Totals 2,314,983,026 17,962,897,685 0.1289 0.1362 0.1277 2,446,760,162 2,294,659,223 95% 101%

1-5 $ 1,627,345,532 $ 9,698,021,994 0.1678 0.1767 0.1670 $ 1,713,369,582 $ 1,619,309,443 95% 100%6-10 687,637,494 8,264,875,691 0.0832 0.0887 0.0817 733,390,580 675,349,780 94% 102%

Sample Rates Weighted by Salary A/EExpected Terminations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Age

Actual Experience Current Assumptions Proposed Assumptions



VI-10


ALL EMPLOYEES ULTIMATE TERMINATION EXPERIENCE

WEIGHTED BY SALARYYears Until Terminations ExposureRetirement Weighted by Weighted by CrudeEligibility Salary Salary Rates Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 $ 19,671,263 $ 974,014,693 0.0202 0.0181 0.0193 $ 17,592,405 $ 18,832,057 112% 104%2 27,764,482 994,012,267 0.0279 0.0257 0.0259 25,510,072 25,703,262 109% 108%3 30,741,597 1,019,483,392 0.0302 0.0315 0.0307 32,132,267 31,295,993 96% 98%4 32,588,010 1,050,245,131 0.0310 0.0365 0.0346 38,296,204 36,376,955 85% 90%5 39,426,392 1,077,277,719 0.0366 0.0408 0.0381 43,984,379 40,998,546 90% 96%6 41,320,770 1,110,066,553 0.0372 0.0448 0.0411 49,711,073 45,587,351 83% 91%7 47,391,169 1,139,405,051 0.0416 0.0484 0.0438 55,169,014 49,937,607 86% 95%8 55,837,142 1,178,184,542 0.0474 0.0518 0.0464 61,034,704 54,679,250 91% 102%9 64,498,113 1,195,489,815 0.0540 0.0550 0.0487 65,744,974 58,241,907 98% 111%10 68,506,073 1,217,960,936 0.0562 0.0580 0.0510 70,647,256 62,079,830 97% 110%11 6,126,905 111,616,448 0.0549 0.0609 0.0532 6,792,538 5,937,698 90% 103%12 5,912,827 113,235,626 0.0522 0.0636 0.0552 7,201,512 6,248,747 82% 95%13 7,031,367 114,634,990 0.0613 0.0662 0.0572 7,590,581 6,552,828 93% 107%14 8,177,978 118,321,177 0.0691 0.0687 0.0590 8,134,548 6,975,729 101% 117%15 8,630,488 120,333,737 0.0717 0.0712 0.0607 8,566,131 7,308,705 101% 118%

Totals 463,624,576 11,534,282,077 0.0432 0.0559 0.0425 498,107,658 456,756,466 93% 102%

1-5 $ 150,191,744 $ 5,115,033,202 0.0294 0.0308 0.0300 $ 157,515,328 $ 153,206,813 95% 98%6-10 277,553,266 5,841,106,897 0.0475 0.0518 0.0463 302,307,021 270,525,946 92% 103%

11-15 35,879,566 578,141,978 0.0621 0.0662 0.0571 38,285,310 33,023,708 94% 109%

Expected TerminationsSample Rates Weighted by Salary A/E

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Years to Retirement Eligibility

Actual Experience Current Assumptions Proposed Assumptions



VI-11

*Experience is based on cities with a 2-to-1 match *Columns may not add due to rounding.

ALL EMPLOYEES REFUND EXPERIENCEWEIGHTED BY SALARY

Refunds TerminationsWeighted by Weighted by Crude

Age Salary Salary Rates Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

22 $ - $ - NA 0.5450 0.4120 $ - $ - NA NA23 145,130 145,130 1.0000 0.5370 0.4120 77,906 59,823 186% 243%24 128,437 339,034 0.3788 0.5290 0.4120 179,213 139,752 72% 92%25 226,098 469,590 0.4815 0.5200 0.4120 244,375 193,567 93% 117%26 456,699 1,349,049 0.3385 0.5120 0.4120 690,983 556,085 66% 82%27 1,331,258 2,740,214 0.4858 0.5040 0.4120 1,381,068 1,129,530 96% 118%28 1,372,769 3,168,604 0.4332 0.4960 0.4120 1,570,994 1,306,114 87% 105%29 2,043,688 4,714,738 0.4335 0.4880 0.4120 2,298,906 1,943,439 89% 105%30 2,216,436 5,901,275 0.3756 0.4790 0.4120 2,829,071 2,432,535 78% 91%31 2,162,810 5,732,208 0.3773 0.4710 0.4120 2,701,016 2,362,845 80% 92%32 2,128,255 5,588,309 0.3808 0.4630 0.4120 2,587,387 2,303,529 82% 92%33 2,563,452 6,071,711 0.4222 0.4550 0.4120 2,761,414 2,502,790 93% 102%34 2,556,208 6,637,432 0.3851 0.4470 0.4120 2,964,277 2,735,983 86% 93%35 1,966,055 4,692,503 0.4190 0.4380 0.4120 2,057,193 1,934,273 96% 102%36 2,755,990 5,436,375 0.5070 0.4300 0.4120 2,338,729 2,240,901 118% 123%37 2,149,693 5,545,641 0.3876 0.4220 0.4120 2,340,261 2,285,941 92% 94%38 2,167,076 5,202,454 0.4165 0.4140 0.4010 2,152,775 2,088,135 101% 104%39 1,673,004 5,050,338 0.3313 0.4060 0.3910 2,048,417 1,972,384 82% 85%40 2,526,267 5,806,893 0.4350 0.3970 0.3800 2,307,659 2,204,964 109% 115%41 1,477,498 4,624,132 0.3195 0.3890 0.3690 1,799,712 1,705,773 82% 87%42 1,572,396 4,836,026 0.3251 0.3810 0.3580 1,842,526 1,731,563 85% 91%43 1,302,215 4,317,491 0.3016 0.3730 0.3470 1,609,561 1,499,141 81% 87%44 1,451,028 3,638,040 0.3988 0.3650 0.3360 1,326,429 1,223,818 109% 119%45 1,369,098 3,178,887 0.4307 0.3560 0.3260 1,132,955 1,034,934 121% 132%46 942,700 2,102,177 0.4484 0.3480 0.3150 731,978 661,629 129% 142%47 454,935 1,713,612 0.2655 0.3400 0.3040 582,628 520,775 78% 87%48 562,170 1,517,080 0.3706 0.3320 0.2930 503,367 444,618 112% 126%49 555,580 1,611,212 0.3448 0.3240 0.2820 521,388 454,757 107% 122%50 400,527 1,155,740 0.3466 0.3150 0.2710 364,520 313,685 110% 128%51 365,094 1,062,761 0.3435 0.3070 0.2610 326,480 276,940 112% 132%52 118,869 1,003,663 0.1184 0.2990 0.2500 300,095 250,670 40% 47%53 278,299 1,250,510 0.2225 0.2910 0.2390 363,648 298,778 77% 93%54 324,521 978,346 0.3317 0.2830 0.2280 276,481 223,156 117% 145%55 110,325 779,748 0.1415 0.2740 0.2170 213,963 169,412 52% 65%56 113,363 713,542 0.1589 0.2660 0.2060 189,945 147,300 60% 77%57 176,513 582,298 0.3031 0.2580 0.1960 150,233 113,900 117% 155%58 88,571 715,451 0.1238 0.2500 0.1850 178,720 132,197 50% 67%59 102,061 663,145 0.1539 0.2420 0.1740 160,216 115,351 64% 88%

Totals $ 42,335,088 $ 111,035,359 0.3813 0.4152 0.3757 $ 46,106,491 $ 41,710,987 92% 101%

Sample Rates Weighted by Salary A/EExpected Refunds

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59Age

Actual Current Assumption Proposed Assumption



VI-12


MALE RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE

Assumed Rate Expected Retirements Actual / ExpectedActual Total Actual Current Proposed

Age Retirements Count Rate Current Proposed Current Proposed (2) / (7) (2) / (8)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Under 45 280 5,973 0.0469 0.0567 0.0567 339 339 83% 83%45 136 2,534 0.0537 0.0566 0.0566 144 144 95% 95%46 137 2,842 0.0482 0.0568 0.0568 161 161 85% 85%47 144 3,178 0.0453 0.0567 0.0567 180 180 80% 80%48 165 3,580 0.0461 0.0568 0.0568 203 203 81% 81%49 200 3,864 0.0518 0.0568 0.0568 219 219 91% 91%50 234 4,087 0.0573 0.0756 0.0756 309 309 76% 76%51 266 4,104 0.0648 0.0755 0.0755 310 310 86% 86%52 269 4,180 0.0644 0.0753 0.0753 315 315 86% 86%53 299 4,036 0.0741 0.0764 0.0764 308 308 97% 97%54 304 3,955 0.0769 0.0771 0.0771 305 305 100% 100%55 412 3,682 0.1119 0.1265 0.1265 466 466 88% 88%56 403 3,383 0.1191 0.1247 0.1247 422 422 95% 95%57 357 3,161 0.1129 0.1229 0.1229 388 388 92% 92%58 337 2,887 0.1167 0.1205 0.1205 348 348 97% 97%59 335 2,538 0.1320 0.1182 0.1182 300 300 112% 112%60 497 4,496 0.1105 0.1404 0.1404 631 631 79% 79%61 521 4,093 0.1273 0.2344 0.2344 960 960 54% 54%62 746 3,592 0.2077 0.2209 0.2209 793 793 94% 94%63 516 2,851 0.1810 0.2037 0.2037 581 581 89% 89%64 367 2,187 0.1678 0.2763 0.2763 604 604 61% 61%65 407 1,741 0.2338 0.2602 0.2602 453 453 90% 90%66 355 1,325 0.2679 0.1925 0.1925 255 255 139% 139%67 219 902 0.2428 0.1907 0.1907 172 172 127% 127%68 129 647 0.1994 0.1887 0.1887 122 122 106% 106%69 108 550 0.1964 0.1855 0.1855 102 102 106% 106%70 91 411 0.2214 0.2400 0.2400 99 99 92% 92%71 55 276 0.1993 0.2410 0.2410 67 67 83% 83%72 38 225 0.1689 0.2433 0.2433 55 55 69% 69%73 33 192 0.1719 0.2445 0.2445 47 47 70% 70%74 41 148 0.2770 0.2441 0.2441 36 36 113% 113%

75 & over 105 540 0.1944 0.0000 0.0000 540 540 19% 19%Totals 8,506 82,160 10,233 10,233 83% 83%



VI-13


FEMALE RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE

Assumed Rate Expected Retirements Actual / ExpectedActual Total Actual Current Proposed

Age Retirements Count Rate Current Proposed Current Proposed (2) / (7) (2) / (8)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Under 45 74 1,297 0.0571 0.0359 0.0359 47 47 159% 159%45 30 561 0.0535 0.0562 0.0562 32 32 95% 95%46 38 643 0.0591 0.0563 0.0563 36 36 105% 105%47 28 742 0.0377 0.0564 0.0564 42 42 67% 67%48 44 835 0.0527 0.0563 0.0563 47 47 94% 94%49 62 940 0.0660 0.0562 0.0562 53 53 117% 117%50 65 1,021 0.0637 0.0751 0.0751 77 77 85% 85%51 66 1,092 0.0604 0.0751 0.0751 82 82 80% 80%52 72 1,113 0.0647 0.0750 0.0750 83 83 86% 86%53 95 1,194 0.0796 0.0763 0.0763 91 91 104% 104%54 107 1,195 0.0895 0.1013 0.1013 121 121 88% 88%55 116 1,229 0.0944 0.1006 0.1006 124 124 94% 94%56 112 1,143 0.0980 0.0998 0.0998 114 114 98% 98%57 108 1,066 0.1013 0.0990 0.0990 106 106 102% 102%58 84 1,007 0.0834 0.0985 0.0985 99 99 85% 85%59 113 960 0.1177 0.0978 0.0978 94 94 120% 120%60 250 2,407 0.1039 0.1211 0.1211 291 291 86% 86%61 231 2,132 0.1083 0.2208 0.2208 471 471 49% 49%62 307 1,861 0.1650 0.1612 0.1612 300 300 102% 102%63 225 1,591 0.1414 0.1564 0.1564 249 249 90% 90%64 208 1,345 0.1546 0.2144 0.2144 288 288 72% 72%65 257 1,099 0.2338 0.2319 0.2319 255 255 101% 101%66 204 826 0.2470 0.1895 0.1895 157 157 130% 130%67 122 585 0.2085 0.1868 0.1868 109 109 112% 112%68 84 427 0.1967 0.1846 0.1846 79 79 107% 107%69 53 307 0.1726 0.1829 0.1829 56 56 94% 94%70 50 248 0.2016 0.2430 0.2430 60 60 83% 83%71 33 183 0.1803 0.2434 0.2434 45 45 74% 74%72 39 134 0.2910 0.2437 0.2437 33 33 119% 119%73 28 110 0.2545 0.2435 0.2435 27 27 105% 105%74 11 73 0.1507 0.2459 0.2459 18 18 61% 61%

75 & over 52 300 0.1733 1.0598 1.0598 318 318 16% 16%Total 3,368 29,666 4,002 4,002 84% 84%



VI-14

RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE BY PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT

*Data used for analyses of Retirement Experience by Employer Match and Retirement Experience by Employee Contribution Rate are employees who were aged 61 or younger as of valuation date during the study period. * Data used for analysis of Retirement Experience by Recurring COLA% are employees who were aged 61 or younger as of valuation date during the study period and were employed by cities that either had no COLA or had an unchanged COLA during study period.

Retirement Expectations by Employer Match

Employer Current Assumptions New AssumptionsMatch Exposures Actual Expected A/E Ratio Expected A/E Ratio1 - 1 4,489 302 362 83% 362 83%

1.5 - 1 3,408 238 316 75% 316 75%2 - 1 79,253 6,451 7,664 84% 7,664 84%

Retirement Expectation by Recurring COLA %

Recurring Current Assumptions New AssumptionsCOLA% Exposures Actual Expected A/E Ratio Expected A/E Ratio

No COLA 28,114 2,232 2,515 89% 2,515 89%30% 1,438 145 147 98% 147 98%40% 1,098 87 102 85% 102 85%50% 8,092 859 812 106% 812 106%70% 44,810 3,381 4,431 76% 4,431 76%

Retirement Expectation by Employee Contribution Rate

EmployeeContribution New Assumptions

Rate Exposures Actual Expected A/E Ratio Expected A/E Ratio3% 2,582 163 196 83% 196 83%5% 8,615 587 817 72% 817 72%6% 13,639 1,109 1,246 89% 1,246 89%7% 62,314 5,132 6,083 84% 6,083 84%

Current Assumptions

APPENDIX I T E R M I N AT I O N A N D P O P UL AT I O N E X P E R I E N C E B Y C I T Y


Appendix I Termination Experience by City

The exhibit on the following pages show the termination and population experience for each city during the study period. The termination experience is presented separately for the select and ultimate periods. We have also shown the experience on a combined basis using a weighted A/E ratio. For most cities, this is the standard A/E ratio calculated on the combined select and ultimate experience. However, for cities with significant experience in the ultimate period, the calculation gives three times the weight to the ultimate experience in the calculation.

Appendix I

Texas Municipal Retirement System Termination Experience by City

City Active Weighted Current Proposed Actual Annual Proposed Annual

Number City Name Count Select ($) Ultimate ($) Select ($) Ultimate ($) A/E Ratio City Load City Load Rate of Change * Rate of Change *

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

4 Abernathy <100 295,866 71,016 700,776 83,617 157.4% 100.0% 105.0% 7.1% 0.0%

6 Abilene >100 19,233,947 3,524,337 19,539,742 3,473,008 99.6% 107.0% 102.0% 0.3% 0.0%

7 Addison >100 6,416,448 1,326,525 6,550,766 1,642,854 116.6% 90.0% 95.0% 0.3% 0.0%

10 Alamo >100 2,058,283 255,063 2,967,202 456,694 167.4% 110.0% 115.0% 2.2% 0.0%

12 Alamo Heights <100 2,236,450 408,542 2,724,389 1,285,535 250.4% 110.0% 115.0% 0.3% 0.0%

14 Alba <6 120,924 10,150 88,660 0 24.4% 85.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16 Albany <16 446,874 27,839 851,340 0 63.5% 100.0% 95.0% 2.7% 0.0%

17 Aledo <16 305,293 21,837 446,477 115,400 401.1% 85.0% 90.0% 11.5% 0.0%

18 Alice >100 5,204,310 633,758 6,177,169 815,446 125.3% 125.0% 125.0% 0.0% 0.0%

19 Allen >100 17,899,079 3,210,242 15,775,955 3,702,938 106.3% 104.0% 106.3% 3.0% 0.0%

20 Alpine <100 1,454,297 164,445 2,054,685 103,151 88.9% 120.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

22 Alto <11 302,176 729 525,454 0 58.0% 95.0% 85.0% -1.5% -0.7%

23 Alton <100 1,325,697 90,476 2,276,654 262,851 250.9% 110.0% 115.0% 7.6% 0.0%

24 Alvarado <100 1,640,225 120,723 2,456,865 369,868 254.2% 110.0% 115.0% 1.9% 0.0%

26 Alvin >100 5,320,516 639,197 5,705,715 636,915 102.2% 115.0% 110.0% 2.6% 0.0%

28 Alvord <11 185,119 29,899 278,319 130,762 341.7% 85.0% 85.0% 0.6% 0.0%

30 Amarillo >100 34,928,793 5,421,884 38,450,695 4,197,408 88.3% 111.0% 106.0% 1.7% 0.0%

32 Amherst <6 133,731 4,174 317,792 43,831 779.3% 75.0% 75.0% -2.9% -1.0%

34 Anahuac <16 423,442 43,349 1,141,807 179,110 365.3% 95.0% 100.0% -4.1% -1.0%

36 Andrews <100 1,446,159 424,587 1,621,955 264,243 78.9% 95.0% 90.0% 2.9% 0.0%

38 Angleton >100 2,953,210 410,434 3,267,231 560,313 127.9% 109.0% 114.0% 2.1% 0.0%

40 Anna <100 1,289,770 99,629 1,470,793 283,633 227.8% 95.0% 100.0% 7.8% 0.0%

44 Anson <100 417,936 45,171 768,067 99,847 208.6% 95.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

45 Anthony <100 679,763 26,165 746,950 27,538 106.8% 85.0% 90.0% 5.7% 0.0%

48 Aransas Pass >100 2,697,868 174,060 4,576,060 522,356 256.6% 125.0% 125.0% 2.0% 0.0%

50 Archer City <100 449,811 22,089 745,478 0 55.2% 85.0% 80.0% 8.5% 0.0%

51 Argyle <100 460,784 109,477 669,904 311,124 237.9% 110.0% 115.0% 2.7% 0.0%

52 Arlington >100 65,402,788 13,895,043 46,066,943 10,635,800 74.5% 105.0% 100.0% 0.7% 0.0%

54 Arp <11 169,548 25,868 195,294 0 38.4% 85.0% 80.0% 1.0% 0.0%

60 Aspermont <11 148,760 30,112 271,546 0 60.8% 85.0% 80.0% 0.5% 0.0%

62 Athens >100 2,380,654 527,780 2,433,776 742,939 127.9% 98.0% 103.0% -0.2% 0.0%

64 Atlanta <100 779,088 110,409 633,180 211,056 154.5% 95.0% 100.0% -1.1% -0.5%

66 Aubrey <100 1,122,116 150,435 1,521,392 340,304 196.0% 120.0% 115.0% 5.7% 0.0%

74 Avinger <6 6,468 2,778 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

75 Azle >100 2,757,154 475,118 3,556,361 961,062 177.8% 125.0% 125.0% 2.2% 0.0%

77 Baird <11 223,076 17,424 412,186 90,929 409.5% 85.0% 85.0% 1.0% 0.0%

78 Balch Springs >100 3,709,554 530,331 3,972,145 830,482 140.1% 115.0% 120.0% 3.8% 0.0%

79 Balcones Heights <100 1,280,481 138,483 1,721,790 196,227 139.3% 120.0% 115.0% 2.2% 0.0%

80 Ballinger <100 740,631 39,904 1,065,067 0 47.9% 110.0% 105.0% 0.2% 0.0%

82 Balmorhea <6 102,846 0 232,653 0 142.1% 75.0% 75.0% -10.9% -1.0%

83 Bandera <100 326,263 53,808 817,809 122,525 235.4% 110.0% 115.0% -1.7% -0.8%

84 Bangs <16 325,845 17,214 713,616 34,089 205.0% 85.0% 90.0% 3.5% 0.0%

90 Bartlett <16 539,528 22,612 1,152,646 136,008 472.2% 100.0% 100.0% 0.4% 0.0%

91 Bartonville <11 82,726 30,849 190,783 62,806 212.6% 85.0% 85.0% 14.5% 0.0%

92 Bastrop >100 2,909,245 574,237 3,565,259 592,726 109.7% 125.0% 120.0% 2.3% 0.0%

94 Bay City >100 3,954,462 691,151 5,164,318 1,143,586 153.8% 120.0% 125.0% -0.6% -0.2%

93 Bayou Vista <6 172,826 1,433 437,030 68,028 3249.7% 85.0% 75.0% -3.1% -1.0%

96 Baytown >100 17,637,029 3,485,214 16,132,958 3,661,091 100.5% 107.0% 102.0% 2.1% 0.0%

98 Beaumont >100 22,452,262 4,577,861 20,172,838 3,391,469 79.3% 105.0% 100.0% 0.7% 0.0%

101 Bee Cave <100 1,394,426 121,949 1,822,887 411,425 268.5% 85.0% 90.0% 13.9% 0.0%

102 Beeville >100 2,136,984 317,016 3,272,331 722,501 203.0% 91.0% 96.0% 1.3% 0.0%

106 Bellaire >100 2,757,668 742,961 3,090,188 657,195 96.3% 85.0% 90.0% -0.2% 0.0%

109 Bellmead <100 1,564,299 277,176 1,762,625 601,626 182.3% 120.0% 115.0% 2.5% 0.0%

110 Bells <16 212,592 16,123 407,013 61,836 319.5% 85.0% 90.0% 6.0% 0.0%

112 Bellville <100 1,176,600 200,413 1,385,867 221,846 113.1% 120.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

114 Belton >100 3,866,048 369,519 4,131,998 404,035 108.5% 114.0% 109.0% 2.7% 0.0%

118 Benbrook >100 2,507,705 670,088 1,692,235 576,203 79.8% 75.0% 79.8% 1.0% 0.0%

121 Berryville <6 58,516 0 74,160 0 108.9% 75.0% 75.0% 4.6% 0.0%

123 Bertram <11 227,463 18,329 653,406 0 95.8% 95.0% 85.0% 2.8% 0.0%

124 Big Lake <100 493,331 38,088 635,572 59,054 146.3% 110.0% 115.0% 3.9% 0.0%

126 Big Sandy <16 226,848 29,970 611,382 77,491 262.2% 95.0% 100.0% -0.1% 0.0%

128 Big Spring >100 5,336,850 627,382 9,424,534 475,713 109.4% 125.0% 120.0% -0.8% -0.3%

132 Bishop <100 427,620 51,557 751,685 84,089 167.3% 120.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

134 Blanco <16 343,281 23,852 723,698 0 70.3% 95.0% 90.0% 2.1% 0.0%

140 Blooming Grove <6 127,395 0 127,405 0 100.0% 75.0% 75.0% 1.4% 0.0%

142 Blossom <6 61,213 16,856 0 26,400 104.4% 75.0% 75.0% 0.2% 0.0%

143 Blue Mound <16 542,403 3,762 1,224,796 0 75.3% 95.0% 90.0% 4.5% 0.0%

144 Blue Ridge <6 186,843 5,778 368,268 33,899 456.8% 75.0% 75.0% 2.8% 0.0%

148 Boerne >100 5,062,356 765,786 2,916,882 334,695 48.3% 90.0% 85.0% 3.9% 0.0%

150 Bogata <11 206,526 5,502 378,993 36,156 499.3% 85.0% 85.0% 2.1% 0.0%

152 Bonham >100 2,385,897 480,200 3,282,914 704,519 143.7% 125.0% 125.0% 0.0% 0.0%

154 Booker <16 245,524 40,678 236,905 0 32.2% 85.0% 80.0% 2.5% 0.0%

156 Borger >100 3,728,880 438,646 4,508,982 386,930 99.1% 105.0% 100.0% 1.9% 0.0%

158 Bovina <16 227,059 11,120 668,174 34,478 304.8% 85.0% 90.0% 1.6% 0.0%

160 Bowie <100 2,153,361 207,625 2,313,063 174,775 91.9% 105.0% 100.0% 0.9% 0.0%

162 Boyd <100 383,899 23,635 963,241 90,330 338.4% 85.0% 90.0% 6.4% 0.0%

166 Brady <100 2,201,774 289,782 3,713,098 450,429 159.8% 125.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

170 Brazoria <100 548,632 131,524 941,610 62,807 89.0% 120.0% 115.0% -0.9% -0.4%

172 Breckenridge <100 1,684,662 90,205 3,230,341 185,538 201.0% 125.0% 115.0% -0.6% -0.3%

174 Bremond <11 155,018 25,020 373,002 27,021 152.2% 85.0% 85.0% -1.4% -0.7%

176 Brenham >100 4,347,358 842,023 4,610,990 898,761 106.5% 105.0% 106.5% 0.9% 0.0%

177 Bridge City <100 1,319,712 186,065 1,276,748 346,577 156.4% 110.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

178 Bridgeport <100 2,660,472 205,707 4,079,077 463,822 201.4% 115.0% 115.0% -1.0% -0.4%

180 Bronte <6 13,885 26,398 10,842 0 26.0% 75.0% 75.0% -1.7% -0.8%

182 Brookshire <100 844,816 58,927 1,528,574 92,460 164.9% 110.0% 115.0% 5.9% 0.0%

184 Brownfield <100 1,817,379 202,217 2,350,979 99,515 75.9% 120.0% 115.0% 0.3% 0.0%

10188 Brownsville >100 19,577,897 5,446,032 13,922,544 2,262,972 51.4% 75.0% 75.0% 1.2% 0.0%

20188 Brownsville Public Utility >100 10,223,663 2,435,694 6,525,935 1,469,770 61.5% 75.0% 75.0% 2.6% 0.0%

10190 Brownwood >100 4,985,328 741,375 6,045,289 1,000,750 130.4% 123.0% 125.0% 0.0% 0.0%

30190 Brownwood Health Dept. <16 297,631 24,195 295,485 0 33.1% 85.0% 80.0% 6.2% 0.0%

20190 Brownwood Public Library <11 82,446 14,547 97,879 0 39.6% 85.0% 80.0% 15.1% 0.0%

195 Bruceville-Eddy <16 332,392 17,111 543,361 87,253 394.4% 85.0% 90.0% -0.7% -0.3%

192 Bryan >100 22,293,912 3,875,139 19,172,431 4,769,780 110.7% 105.0% 110.0% 0.3% 0.0%

193 Bryson <6 69,058 0 70,958 0 100.9% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

194 Buda <100 1,860,306 97,483 2,022,246 309,286 247.8% 95.0% 100.0% 9.9% 0.0%

196 Buffalo <16 331,569 17,205 343,658 37,999 181.8% 85.0% 90.0% 3.3% 0.0%

198 Bullard <100 477,749 30,096 737,675 78,731 225.9% 85.0% 90.0% 11.1% 0.0%

203 Bulverde <100 647,395 54,995 613,330 236,111 317.8% 95.0% 100.0% 3.0% 0.0%

199 Bunker Hill Village <11 153,062 81,760 142,480 52,796 74.1% 85.0% 80.0% -0.2% -0.1%

200 Burkburnett <100 1,377,131 243,830 1,548,544 575,076 194.7% 110.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Expected Termination Actual Termination Population

Weighted by Salary Weighted by Salary

* "-" indicates insufficient data and no payroll growth adjustment Page 1 of 9

Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



202 Burleson >100 7,602,489 1,667,723 5,633,358 1,531,977 85.9% 115.0% 110.0% 2.7% 0.0%

204 Burnet >100 3,244,683 371,445 4,660,201 452,779 129.1% 125.0% 125.0% 0.5% 0.0%

207 Cactus <100 590,908 40,241 1,202,818 144,131 306.6% 95.0% 100.0% 3.5% 0.0%

208 Caddo Mills <16 421,156 13,598 548,784 83,498 452.8% 85.0% 90.0% 21.8% 0.0%

210 Caldwell <100 925,518 149,033 1,167,151 166,127 116.3% 94.0% 99.0% 0.2% 0.0%

212 Calvert <16 253,690 2,966 740,941 0 97.4% 85.0% 90.0% 4.5% 0.0%

214 Cameron <100 669,691 85,361 1,201,933 132,532 163.3% 110.0% 115.0% -1.3% -0.6%

220 Canadian <100 572,195 57,323 757,506 190,004 265.1% 95.0% 100.0% 1.5% 0.0%

222 Canton <100 1,496,953 175,837 1,819,430 414,168 197.5% 110.0% 115.0% 2.2% 0.0%

224 Canyon <100 1,714,071 290,231 1,326,771 208,762 73.8% 105.0% 100.0% 1.9% 0.0%

227 Carmine <6 9,802 7,489 19,655 0 66.8% 75.0% 75.0% -7.4% -1.0%

228 Carrizo Springs <100 747,936 82,821 1,085,760 253,037 252.1% 96.0% 101.0% 1.7% 0.0%

230 Carrollton >100 17,452,097 4,592,247 15,718,134 4,434,224 94.4% 115.0% 110.0% -0.4% -0.1%

232 Carthage <100 2,302,224 220,851 2,864,609 385,092 157.7% 110.0% 115.0% 0.6% 0.0%

231 Castle Hills <100 1,244,418 229,123 1,844,938 298,269 136.2% 120.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

234 Castroville <100 937,664 111,790 1,668,125 283,538 228.4% 120.0% 115.0% -0.3% -0.1%

238 Cedar Hill >100 8,077,916 1,413,724 7,377,310 1,502,619 101.3% 110.0% 105.0% 2.1% 0.0%

239 Cedar Park >100 9,527,598 1,992,835 7,827,242 2,078,826 96.9% 105.0% 100.0% 3.7% 0.0%

242 Celina <100 1,378,182 161,109 1,378,909 906,046 408.3% 95.0% 100.0% 10.6% 0.0%

244 Center <100 1,347,734 275,320 1,187,256 221,562 83.0% 115.0% 110.0% 0.0% 0.0%

246 Centerville <6 68,450 25,792 21,216 0 10.3% 75.0% 75.0% 3.2% 0.0%

247 Chandler <100 250,113 10,907 387,248 0 51.6% 85.0% 80.0% - -

248 Charlotte <11 91,699 37,479 121,173 0 44.0% 85.0% 80.0% -0.1% 0.0%

249 Chester <6 2,789 5,384 0 11,336 140.4% 75.0% 75.0% -4.4% -1.0%

245 Chico <11 137,838 35,235 154,178 0 37.3% 85.0% 80.0% 1.0% 0.0%

250 Childress <100 1,037,240 78,960 1,350,247 94,702 123.3% 120.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

253 Chireno <11 217,940 17,424 101,090 0 15.5% 85.0% 80.0% 0.3% 0.0%

254 Christine <6 33,666 0 43,644 0 109.9% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

255 Cibolo >100 2,264,438 206,496 3,723,903 529,026 225.6% 125.0% 125.0% 11.4% 0.0%

256 Cisco <100 739,901 26,797 1,504,487 29,911 142.2% 110.0% 115.0% 1.8% 0.0%

258 Clarendon <16 245,415 17,174 378,962 78,768 357.2% 95.0% 100.0% 0.6% 0.0%

259 Clarksville <100 676,183 74,055 1,205,870 70,818 123.2% 110.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

260 Clarksville City <6 85,214 0 197,410 0 143.9% 75.0% 75.0% 4.4% 0.0%

263 Clear Lake Shores <16 442,601 54,772 783,188 47,618 116.9% 95.0% 100.0% -0.3% -0.1%

264 Cleburne >100 7,230,288 1,184,275 6,303,819 1,386,729 107.1% 90.0% 95.0% 0.1% 0.0%

266 Cleveland <100 2,272,804 193,172 3,694,845 403,553 193.5% 125.0% 115.0% -1.1% -0.5%

268 Clifton <100 652,290 65,092 914,793 222,326 274.5% 110.0% 115.0% 1.3% 0.0%

271 Clute <100 2,722,536 246,687 4,597,637 468,915 183.0% 125.0% 115.0% -0.5% -0.2%

272 Clyde <100 722,063 45,587 1,183,963 67,165 152.9% 110.0% 115.0% 2.5% 0.0%

274 Coahoma <6 146,720 10,947 93,876 29,297 199.7% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

276 Cockrell Hill <100 1,079,218 66,683 1,895,271 107,696 166.2% 120.0% 115.0% 0.9% 0.0%

278 Coleman <100 1,198,337 293,278 1,781,123 403,235 141.2% 115.0% 115.0% -1.2% -0.6%

280 College Station >100 20,235,268 3,775,024 18,847,920 4,381,015 108.4% 90.0% 95.0% 0.8% 0.0%

281 Colleyville >100 3,921,979 954,312 4,396,779 1,059,189 111.4% 93.0% 98.0% 0.9% 0.0%

282 Collinsville <11 193,580 8,456 133,950 125,388 1011.6% 85.0% 85.0% 1.4% 0.0%

283 Colmesneil <6 48,255 32,140 65,357 0 45.1% 75.0% 75.0% 6.1% 0.0%

284 Colorado City <100 1,140,859 113,781 2,371,133 405,647 307.0% 120.0% 115.0% -0.2% -0.1%

286 Columbus <100 860,650 113,516 875,456 156,458 125.8% 105.0% 110.0% -0.7% -0.3%

288 Comanche <100 506,564 57,919 550,364 108,819 161.5% 95.0% 100.0% 0.9% 0.0%

290 Commerce <100 1,783,345 187,804 2,246,418 684,630 285.0% 120.0% 115.0% 0.2% 0.0%

294 Conroe >100 9,748,984 2,134,560 9,707,896 1,906,212 92.7% 105.0% 100.0% 2.0% 0.0%

295 Converse >100 3,628,757 310,691 5,419,145 459,141 148.3% 125.0% 125.0% 2.9% 0.0%

298 Cooper <16 178,535 41,037 158,028 29,394 77.3% 85.0% 80.0% 0.3% 0.0%

299 Coppell >100 8,609,579 2,558,610 6,913,713 1,835,485 74.6% 102.0% 97.0% 1.1% 0.0%

297 Copper Canyon <6 52,060 1,624 122,954 38,337 1652.4% 75.0% 75.0% 5.1% 0.0%

300 Copperas Cove >100 5,312,550 988,970 7,902,620 1,609,475 158.1% 125.0% 125.0% -0.1% 0.0%

301 Corinth >100 3,527,850 1,080,257 3,836,973 1,282,253 115.4% 105.0% 110.0% 1.1% 0.0%

302 Corpus Christi >100 47,974,758 9,417,019 47,223,862 8,560,921 93.4% 105.0% 100.0% -1.6% -0.7%

304 Corrigan <100 475,890 66,907 1,105,449 96,762 173.8% 95.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0.0%

306 Corsicana >100 4,350,730 844,777 4,753,662 815,548 100.8% 105.0% 100.8% -2.3% -1.0%

308 Cotulla <100 806,586 45,232 1,614,611 164,066 308.5% 110.0% 115.0% 6.8% 0.0%

310 Crandall <100 909,772 60,098 1,751,412 159,853 241.5% 110.0% 115.0% 0.9% 0.0%

312 Crane <100 503,828 67,415 608,714 39,288 79.1% 104.0% 99.0% 1.5% 0.0%

314 Crawford <6 87,199 16,083 117,020 0 44.7% 75.0% 75.0% 2.3% 0.0%

316 Crockett <100 1,100,679 225,378 1,771,136 225,039 120.2% 125.0% 115.0% 0.6% 0.0%

318 Crosbyton <16 270,774 24,224 457,342 35,865 155.0% 85.0% 90.0% 1.0% 0.0%

320 Cross Plains <11 150,451 18,641 180,935 57,376 245.3% 85.0% 85.0% 5.1% 0.0%

323 Crowley >100 2,367,689 287,098 2,990,530 520,703 163.0% 120.0% 125.0% 3.7% 0.0%

324 Crystal City <100 1,052,972 104,387 2,228,974 166,634 177.0% 125.0% 115.0% -0.8% -0.3%

326 Cuero >100 2,029,271 298,686 1,762,806 683,270 181.5% 115.0% 120.0% 3.0% 0.0%

328 Cumby <16 166,923 12,756 295,874 33,195 232.6% 85.0% 90.0% - -

332 Daingerfield <100 501,009 45,430 818,227 0 54.4% 120.0% 115.0% 1.0% 0.0%

334 Daisetta <11 279,938 3,527 653,171 30,366 651.7% 85.0% 85.0% -2.4% -1.0%

336 Dalhart <100 1,429,013 186,986 2,498,936 240,179 143.9% 125.0% 115.0% 0.8% 0.0%

339 Dalworthington Gardens <100 803,542 135,353 961,446 176,650 126.9% 95.0% 100.0% 1.0% 0.0%

340 Danbury <11 197,698 11,954 381,342 0 64.3% 90.0% 85.0% - -

341 Darrouzett <6 73,213 0 121,098 0 121.8% 75.0% 75.0% 1.3% 0.0%

344 Dayton <100 2,048,286 149,659 2,714,714 385,906 216.1% 125.0% 115.0% 2.8% 0.0%

352 De Leon <16 351,266 44,993 691,273 97,640 210.3% 95.0% 100.0% -3.0% -1.0%

346 Decatur >100 2,541,131 425,785 2,798,152 482,843 112.3% 114.0% 112.3% 3.8% 0.0%

348 Deer Park >100 6,644,216 1,445,564 5,348,109 989,929 72.5% 75.0% 75.0% 1.0% 0.0%

350 Dekalb <16 359,438 23,135 635,852 85,949 306.6% 110.0% 100.0% -0.7% -0.3%

354 Del Rio >100 9,247,599 1,141,051 11,357,213 1,977,316 156.5% 95.0% 100.0% 17.8% 0.0%

353 Dell City <6 22,835 22,543 26,470 0 38.6% 75.0% 75.0% -4.4% -1.0%

356 Denison >100 4,353,225 976,403 4,326,753 612,266 74.9% 115.0% 110.0% -0.1% 0.0%

358 Denton >100 25,877,448 6,625,865 19,250,248 4,042,251 65.5% 105.0% 100.0% 1.8% 0.0%

360 Denver City <100 570,600 167,462 946,904 60,737 79.5% 95.0% 90.0% -0.8% -0.4%

362 Deport <6 41,308 0 68,539 0 122.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10366 DeSoto >100 7,548,965 1,689,317 7,607,077 1,637,146 98.2% 102.0% 98.2% 1.2% 0.0%

370 Devine <100 703,467 84,840 994,740 127,125 147.0% 95.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

371 Diboll <100 1,035,190 145,724 1,594,472 417,983 242.6% 120.0% 115.0% -1.0% -0.4%

372 Dickens <6 65,505 0 82,055 0 108.4% 75.0% 75.0% - -

373 Dickinson <100 2,194,944 346,192 3,115,626 580,404 159.1% 110.0% 115.0% 2.8% 0.0%

374 Dilley <100 687,576 42,395 1,570,037 196,498 385.1% 110.0% 115.0% 5.0% 0.0%

376 Dimmitt <100 522,434 57,271 812,569 113,481 183.9% 120.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

382 Donna <100 1,922,063 186,476 2,531,450 244,866 131.4% 125.0% 115.0% 4.1% 0.0%

379 Double Oak <16 326,436 9,852 530,419 0 54.2% 85.0% 80.0% 3.2% 0.0%

383 Dripping Springs <11 199,813 53,376 73,969 0 12.3% 85.0% 80.0% 7.2% 0.0%

384 Dublin <100 710,787 73,772 1,563,659 81,809 147.3% 110.0% 115.0% 1.3% 0.0%

386 Dumas >100 3,212,306 476,791 4,270,014 683,357 139.9% 110.0% 115.0% 1.6% 0.0%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



388 Duncanville >100 5,420,232 1,171,044 5,475,212 1,641,350 127.1% 108.0% 113.0% 0.3% 0.0%

394 Eagle Lake <100 667,219 89,772 1,417,673 211,563 227.9% 110.0% 115.0% -0.5% -0.2%

396 Eagle Pass >100 6,236,963 1,219,314 5,760,805 1,565,761 116.4% 90.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0%

397 Early <100 512,529 40,541 654,473 146,743 283.9% 95.0% 100.0% 0.1% 0.0%

399 Earth <6 104,813 2,689 205,946 30,438 820.2% 75.0% 75.0% 5.0% 0.0%

401 East Mountain <6 54,982 0 108,644 0 132.5% 75.0% 75.0% 6.3% 0.0%

395 East Tawakoni <11 172,465 7,127 197,592 18,952 215.5% 85.0% 85.0% 3.6% 0.0%

398 Eastland <100 731,005 70,793 1,172,814 25,422 77.4% 120.0% 115.0% 2.2% 0.0%

402 Ector <6 64,311 3,254 87,096 0 45.1% 75.0% 75.0% 0.3% 0.0%

406 Eden <16 293,376 37,680 347,106 165,858 332.9% 95.0% 100.0% -4.5% -1.0%

408 Edgewood <11 195,617 5,394 320,242 0 54.6% 85.0% 80.0% -4.6% -1.0%

410 Edinburg >100 14,677,006 2,083,071 13,280,090 2,184,971 100.1% 115.0% 110.0% 3.2% 0.0%

412 Edna <100 802,287 179,583 966,591 207,592 117.2% 115.0% 115.0% 1.4% 0.0%

414 El Campo >100 2,046,800 412,279 1,922,098 565,696 122.8% 90.0% 95.0% 1.0% 0.0%

416 Eldorado <100 473,239 38,872 886,040 0 62.4% 110.0% 105.0% 3.7% 0.0%

418 Electra <100 691,901 60,363 1,280,749 175,424 255.4% 95.0% 100.0% -1.2% -0.6%

420 Elgin <100 1,673,335 191,973 2,011,321 389,204 175.2% 117.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

422 Elkhart <11 184,834 10,790 235,308 53,710 374.3% 85.0% 85.0% 2.6% 0.0%

427 Elmendorf <11 221,462 0 391,028 0 125.5% 90.0% 85.0% - -

432 Emory <100 378,778 26,211 302,688 45,782 143.1% 85.0% 90.0% 5.9% 0.0%

436 Ennis >100 2,808,436 758,376 1,396,220 411,820 52.8% 75.0% 75.0% 0.2% 0.0%

439 Euless >100 7,386,589 2,316,803 4,645,168 1,620,423 67.6% 90.0% 85.0% 0.4% 0.0%

440 Eustace <16 296,579 15,026 600,864 29,125 196.8% 100.0% 100.0% 4.2% 0.0%

441 Everman <100 922,302 59,404 1,332,350 68,537 125.1% 120.0% 115.0% 1.7% 0.0%

443 Fair Oaks Ranch <100 1,207,962 109,813 1,379,239 211,912 166.7% 95.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.0%

442 Fairfield <100 1,052,355 146,296 1,229,984 421,906 231.2% 95.0% 100.0% 1.6% 0.0%

445 Fairview <100 1,322,264 166,425 954,781 204,542 106.0% 95.0% 100.0% 8.7% 0.0%

20444 Falfurrias <100 549,280 24,955 876,770 108,201 342.3% 95.0% 100.0% 2.1% 0.0%

10444 Falfurrias Utility Board <11 119,925 77,338 231,645 26,354 87.1% 85.0% 85.0% - -

446 Falls City <6 101,425 0 215,962 0 137.6% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

448 Farmers Branch >100 9,146,116 4,556,619 6,740,875 4,017,143 83.3% 90.0% 85.0% -0.8% -0.3%

450 Farmersville <100 620,918 131,221 823,524 354,590 224.4% 110.0% 115.0% 4.2% 0.0%

451 Farwell <11 164,366 21,910 415,867 40,343 207.1% 85.0% 85.0% 0.9% 0.0%

452 Fate <100 574,269 43,675 1,029,501 244,348 432.7% 85.0% 90.0% 23.6% 0.0%

454 Fayetteville <6 31,546 5,234 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

456 Ferris <100 947,976 78,119 1,527,544 228,955 249.1% 110.0% 115.0% 3.8% 0.0%

458 Flatonia <100 327,287 60,702 413,833 0 42.1% 95.0% 90.0% 2.9% 0.0%

460 Florence <11 244,755 22,025 437,658 90,187 332.6% 85.0% 85.0% 1.1% 0.0%

20462 Floresville <100 1,182,794 172,619 1,543,003 450,414 217.4% 120.0% 115.0% -1.0% -0.4%

463 Flower Mound >100 13,577,652 2,637,906 13,389,267 3,607,469 124.0% 110.0% 115.0% 3.3% 0.0%

464 Floydada <100 339,041 107,754 549,860 99,960 115.9% 95.0% 100.0% -1.3% -0.6%

468 Forest Hill <100 2,375,750 314,861 3,104,106 547,634 159.5% 107.0% 112.0% 0.2% 0.0%

470 Forney >100 3,223,886 390,273 2,736,428 639,937 137.6% 87.0% 92.0% 8.1% 0.0%

472 Fort Stockton >100 3,418,000 222,089 5,123,043 467,355 190.3% 110.0% 115.0% 2.9% 0.0%

476 Franklin <100 320,200 48,263 491,707 100,695 190.3% 85.0% 90.0% 5.1% 0.0%

478 Frankston <16 282,861 5,814 328,983 0 38.8% 85.0% 80.0% 3.9% 0.0%

480 Fredericksburg >100 2,728,834 695,532 1,669,582 280,982 47.3% 90.0% 85.0% 1.0% 0.0%

482 Freeport >100 3,727,631 304,479 6,536,177 797,360 233.0% 125.0% 125.0% 1.3% 0.0%

481 Freer <100 416,216 32,335 689,307 68,896 197.3% 95.0% 100.0% 4.0% 0.0%

483 Friendswood >100 5,079,393 941,554 3,758,349 831,718 83.6% 75.0% 80.0% 1.2% 0.0%

484 Friona <100 501,947 47,361 771,249 89,786 177.6% 120.0% 115.0% -1.5% -0.7%

486 Frisco >100 25,785,552 5,000,660 17,058,126 3,362,210 66.9% 90.0% 85.0% 6.6% 0.0%

487 Fritch <100 765,082 23,553 1,821,826 60,197 249.8% 95.0% 100.0% 2.1% 0.0%

488 Frost <6 101,832 8,460 78,561 0 25.7% 75.0% 75.0% 1.0% 0.0%

492 Gainesville >100 4,577,735 875,115 6,583,284 1,716,084 178.7% 125.0% 125.0% -1.2% -0.6%

494 Galena Park <100 1,726,244 198,192 2,114,577 399,158 175.1% 120.0% 115.0% -2.1% -1.0%

498 Ganado <11 208,094 62,454 164,522 68,873 99.9% 90.0% 85.0% -1.0% -0.5%

499 Garden Ridge <100 541,618 102,315 669,888 205,915 175.4% 95.0% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0%

500 Garland >100 46,083,927 11,884,613 28,361,283 7,529,933 62.8% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

502 Garrison <11 82,635 62,368 100,053 0 40.4% 85.0% 80.0% -2.2% -1.0%

503 Gary <6 104,479 10,060 44,763 35,788 251.4% 75.0% 75.0% -4.2% -1.0%

504 Gatesville <100 1,515,501 231,630 1,419,993 382,370 141.3% 115.0% 115.0% 1.6% 0.0%

505 George West <100 684,127 55,677 1,063,519 58,108 121.4% 85.0% 90.0% - -

506 Georgetown >100 14,414,167 2,616,438 10,067,762 2,142,544 77.9% 90.0% 85.0% 4.3% 0.0%

510 Giddings <100 1,468,297 140,016 1,760,626 257,541 162.6% 125.0% 115.0% 1.3% 0.0%

512 Gilmer <100 913,918 117,126 1,202,639 125,532 115.3% 120.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

514 Gladewater <100 1,270,462 121,301 2,517,303 324,418 244.3% 120.0% 115.0% 3.2% 0.0%

516 Glen Rose <100 507,027 68,118 540,359 162,910 195.0% 93.0% 98.0% 3.8% 0.0%

517 Glenn Heights <100 1,987,493 223,341 2,917,369 599,220 227.8% 125.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

518 Godley <11 242,178 26,550 429,653 85,934 274.9% 85.0% 85.0% 3.1% 0.0%

519 Goldsmith <6 36,638 20,170 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

520 Goldthwaite <16 263,975 47,477 147,061 6,500 27.7% 85.0% 80.0% -0.2% 0.0%

522 Goliad <16 329,676 17,798 682,279 91,168 410.5% 85.0% 90.0% -1.4% -0.6%

524 Gonzales >100 2,044,275 369,061 2,843,803 614,467 157.4% 115.0% 120.0% 2.4% 0.0%

532 Graford <6 87,447 0 47,958 0 84.9% 90.0% 75.0% - -

10534 Graham <100 1,983,423 254,474 3,055,880 359,261 145.5% 110.0% 115.0% -1.9% -0.9%

536 Granbury >100 4,017,652 470,799 3,708,892 450,025 94.5% 105.0% 100.0% 3.6% 0.0%

540 Grand Prairie >100 25,516,192 9,829,081 20,163,240 5,425,581 63.1% 90.0% 85.0% 0.9% 0.0%

542 Grand Saline <100 609,966 88,456 1,088,884 186,487 200.1% 110.0% 115.0% -3.2% -1.0%

544 Grandview <16 423,580 41,241 755,347 0 59.4% 95.0% 90.0% -0.2% 0.0%

546 Granger <11 215,694 21,628 447,868 78,740 311.9% 85.0% 85.0% -4.5% -1.0%

547 Granite Shoals <100 1,017,046 29,009 1,617,545 25,873 112.5% 95.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

548 Grapeland <16 202,915 35,153 282,557 116,387 267.1% 85.0% 90.0% 1.9% 0.0%

550 Grapevine >100 11,695,485 3,501,876 9,149,111 2,213,256 68.2% 90.0% 85.0% 0.1% 0.0%

552 Greenville >100 6,828,331 1,478,970 6,340,348 2,023,248 122.2% 110.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

551 Gregory <11 224,028 16,321 569,146 78,043 403.5% 85.0% 85.0% 5.6% 0.0%

553 Grey Forest Utilities <100 956,924 213,393 793,251 0 27.6% 95.0% 90.0% 3.2% 0.0%

556 Groesbeck <100 668,386 80,517 877,287 119,611 142.8% 95.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

558 Groom <6 102,700 6,496 151,855 36,015 418.9% 75.0% 75.0% 5.3% 0.0%

559 Groves <100 1,932,235 391,024 1,138,567 606,414 123.0% 75.0% 80.0% -0.1% 0.0%

560 Groveton <11 131,896 8,993 74,699 0 18.9% 85.0% 80.0% 7.8% 0.0%

562 Gruver <6 168,398 48,179 445,975 140,396 282.5% 85.0% 75.0% -2.2% -1.0%

563 Gun Barrel City <100 1,187,605 89,239 1,446,610 25,048 59.3% 110.0% 105.0% 1.6% 0.0%

564 Gunter <11 302,154 10,184 623,992 51,766 407.7% 85.0% 85.0% 4.2% 0.0%

568 Hale Center <11 269,721 20,762 497,075 92,000 356.8% 85.0% 85.0% - -

570 Hallettsville <100 411,938 149,731 299,230 25,017 35.4% 92.0% 87.0% 0.8% 0.0%

572 Hallsville <100 366,687 14,735 635,519 170,059 827.2% 85.0% 90.0% - -

574 Haltom City >100 5,863,669 1,497,878 4,417,173 1,484,254 91.2% 105.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

576 Hamilton <100 301,354 16,884 203,646 32,114 149.3% 97.0% 102.0% 0.6% 0.0%

578 Hamlin <16 309,783 52,997 675,205 125,829 230.9% 110.0% 100.0% -2.5% -1.0%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



580 Happy <6 90,420 1,961 85,439 30,993 1084.9% 75.0% 75.0% -0.6% -0.3%

581 Harker Heights >100 4,536,176 600,287 5,570,461 1,105,909 163.8% 125.0% 125.0% 4.4% 0.0%

10582 Harlingen >100 4,905,323 1,580,560 5,046,503 1,726,543 107.1% 110.0% 107.1% -6.8% 0.0%

20582 Harlingen Waterworks >100 2,450,097 518,130 2,702,603 201,288 62.7% 97.0% 92.0% 0.3% 0.0%

583 Hart <6 97,984 7,848 72,709 31,185 289.6% 75.0% 75.0% -3.1% -1.0%

586 Haskell <100 410,008 20,926 787,904 134,917 493.9% 95.0% 100.0% 0.5% 0.0%

587 Haslet <100 364,435 120,408 547,851 319,829 227.2% 95.0% 100.0% 8.5% 0.0%

588 Hawkins <16 156,657 15,216 131,716 40,048 203.5% 85.0% 90.0% -1.2% -0.6%

585 Hays <6 17,912 2,881 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% -7.4% -1.0%

590 Hearne <100 1,415,106 133,170 2,043,608 113,594 105.0% 120.0% 115.0% 0.3% 0.0%

591 Heath <100 1,031,520 348,780 1,477,691 328,803 110.6% 95.0% 100.0% 3.7% 0.0%

592 Hedley <6 41,669 6,912 107,561 28,200 358.0% 75.0% 75.0% -3.1% -1.0%

595 Hedwig Village <100 676,180 132,731 799,562 145,486 112.5% 95.0% 100.0% -0.7% -0.3%

593 Helotes <100 1,044,670 121,520 931,272 237,813 160.2% 85.0% 90.0% 10.5% 0.0%

594 Hemphill <100 389,762 124,558 262,465 210,749 135.2% 109.0% 114.0% 2.2% 0.0%

596 Hempstead <100 1,470,360 108,001 2,121,414 201,910 172.7% 110.0% 115.0% 3.9% 0.0%

598 Henderson >100 2,888,458 521,912 2,766,861 436,865 87.7% 115.0% 110.0% 0.8% 0.0%

600 Henrietta <100 489,219 43,667 685,214 329,681 550.0% 120.0% 115.0% 0.2% 0.0%

602 Hereford <100 2,100,865 510,787 1,655,674 526,788 95.0% 90.0% 95.0% 0.9% 0.0%

605 Hewitt <100 1,705,361 289,345 2,044,017 256,143 99.0% 125.0% 115.0% 1.9% 0.0%

609 Hickory Creek <100 768,689 75,007 783,588 63,034 90.0% 95.0% 90.0% -1.2% -0.6%

606 Hico <16 221,041 4,299 326,347 23,391 411.9% 100.0% 100.0% -1.4% -0.7%

607 Hidalgo >100 3,716,151 507,976 4,946,022 1,081,429 186.3% 115.0% 120.0% 0.6% 0.0%

608 Higgins <6 16,127 10,987 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 4.6% 0.0%

610 Highland Park >100 2,623,860 884,472 1,298,390 527,832 56.3% 75.0% 75.0% 0.3% 0.0%

611 Highland Village >100 3,614,152 680,942 3,821,110 1,014,348 134.6% 105.0% 110.0% 2.9% 0.0%

613 Hill Country Village <16 297,766 89,573 455,115 37,098 78.6% 95.0% 90.0% -0.5% -0.2%

612 Hillsboro >100 2,250,675 387,177 3,204,989 658,636 160.9% 125.0% 125.0% 0.1% 0.0%

614 Hitchcock <100 904,652 105,374 1,619,039 191,660 180.9% 110.0% 115.0% 2.6% 0.0%

615 Holland <6 91,093 30,623 258,858 94,025 299.4% 85.0% 75.0% -0.5% -0.2%

616 Holliday <11 248,251 42,716 308,395 66,321 144.9% 85.0% 85.0% -0.1% 0.0%

617 Hollywood Park <100 782,936 97,692 927,366 181,313 163.2% 95.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

618 Hondo >100 2,307,823 227,759 2,549,216 502,998 184.1% 110.0% 115.0% 3.7% 0.0%

620 Honey Grove <16 204,641 34,032 392,569 47,441 156.9% 90.0% 95.0% 0.2% 0.0%

622 Hooks <16 273,826 62,489 296,388 84,212 125.9% 115.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

626 Howe <16 332,312 32,240 626,326 40,053 145.6% 95.0% 100.0% -2.7% -1.0%

627 Hubbard <16 256,592 34,104 481,068 99,165 256.3% 95.0% 100.0% -0.8% -0.4%

628 Hudson <100 471,122 33,398 578,602 0 40.9% 95.0% 90.0% 1.3% 0.0%

629 Hudson Oaks <100 739,207 87,344 747,237 244,281 220.1% 95.0% 100.0% 2.0% 0.0%

630 Hughes Springs <16 144,420 68,904 106,260 0 24.5% 95.0% 90.0% -1.5% -0.7%

632 Humble >100 4,545,360 1,111,956 3,043,131 759,611 67.9% 75.0% 75.0% 0.5% 0.0%

633 Hunters Creek Village <11 166,160 53,855 209,103 66,180 123.9% 85.0% 85.0% 1.3% 0.0%

634 Huntington <100 367,448 70,930 699,494 67,214 126.6% 110.0% 115.0% -0.6% -0.2%

636 Huntsville >100 6,701,684 927,297 5,997,811 789,964 86.6% 105.0% 100.0% -0.6% -0.2%

637 Hurst >100 8,515,861 1,650,325 5,604,357 1,012,211 62.8% 90.0% 85.0% 1.4% 0.0%

638 Hutchins <100 1,466,059 212,839 2,560,774 549,932 230.5% 110.0% 115.0% 3.0% 0.0%

640 Hutto <100 2,798,447 373,912 2,763,300 1,013,397 213.6% 95.0% 100.0% 7.7% 0.0%

641 Huxley <11 229,793 35,796 374,023 95,972 233.0% 85.0% 85.0% -1.8% -0.8%

642 Idalou <16 423,499 18,677 534,675 22,967 124.1% 100.0% 100.0% - -

643 Ingleside <100 1,496,610 152,141 2,681,323 216,092 154.4% 125.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

646 Ingram <16 179,740 52,784 299,321 111,486 196.3% 85.0% 90.0% 2.5% 0.0%

644 Iowa Park <100 852,110 155,087 1,116,564 114,135 92.7% 115.0% 110.0% 0.8% 0.0%

645 Iraan <11 118,865 20,485 117,380 0 32.9% 85.0% 80.0% 1.3% 0.0%

648 Irving >100 30,804,995 9,374,432 20,609,461 7,600,286 76.4% 77.0% 76.4% -0.7% -0.3%

650 Italy <100 503,312 34,511 817,110 137,775 320.3% 85.0% 90.0% - -

652 Itasca <100 484,438 24,128 1,078,593 0 74.2% 95.0% 90.0% 2.8% 0.0%

654 Jacinto City <100 1,374,173 153,659 1,492,955 197,461 121.9% 117.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

656 Jacksboro <100 1,135,294 54,130 1,785,358 307,213 430.8% 120.0% 115.0% 0.9% 0.0%

658 Jacksonville >100 2,818,816 365,295 3,825,289 374,426 113.6% 125.0% 120.0% -0.6% -0.2%

660 Jasper >100 2,684,778 392,170 3,192,591 523,402 128.6% 109.0% 114.0% 0.0% 0.0%

664 Jefferson <100 447,763 39,877 963,754 112,895 260.5% 95.0% 100.0% -3.1% -1.0%

665 Jersey Village <100 2,022,434 606,845 2,180,648 1,092,557 156.0% 105.0% 110.0% 2.0% 0.0%

666 Jewett <11 149,135 30,520 172,569 44,284 135.3% 85.0% 85.0% 8.9% 0.0%

668 Joaquin <11 135,551 2,448 179,684 0 44.2% 85.0% 80.0% 14.0% 0.0%

670 Johnson City <16 358,973 65,625 398,221 159,233 198.7% 95.0% 100.0% -0.7% -0.3%

673 Jones Creek <11 78,677 16,347 164,828 0 69.8% 75.0% 75.0% 4.6% 0.0%

675 Jonestown <100 698,775 38,451 718,800 131,177 261.7% 95.0% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0%

677 Josephine <6 118,516 9,667 145,346 42,741 335.6% 75.0% 75.0% 0.9% 0.0%

671 Joshua <100 861,929 138,084 1,230,211 222,325 154.9% 110.0% 115.0% 3.3% 0.0%

672 Jourdanton <100 739,265 27,854 1,107,187 47,726 164.2% 110.0% 115.0% 5.3% 0.0%

674 Junction <100 282,458 79,001 568,912 146,077 190.4% 120.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

676 Justin <100 787,856 109,972 1,282,532 128,790 132.3% 95.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

678 Karnes City <100 447,333 74,856 247,045 57,532 69.6% 85.0% 80.0% 12.1% 0.0%

680 Katy >100 3,085,286 719,778 2,093,142 670,867 84.8% 75.0% 80.0% 3.0% 0.0%

682 Kaufman <100 1,030,051 190,822 1,456,723 245,072 132.8% 116.0% 115.0% 1.0% 0.0%

683 Keene <100 1,190,954 249,082 1,552,280 306,496 125.5% 120.0% 115.0% 2.7% 0.0%

681 Keller >100 7,573,356 1,677,070 6,805,053 2,234,125 118.8% 90.0% 95.0% 1.0% 0.0%

685 Kemah <100 847,479 266,549 1,184,561 465,834 163.1% 95.0% 100.0% -1.5% -0.7%

684 Kemp <11 530,367 8,307 1,193,397 73,845 667.7% 115.0% 85.0% -12.4% -1.0%

686 Kenedy <100 502,169 80,531 619,257 28,441 64.7% 107.0% 102.0% 10.9% 0.0%

688 Kennedale <100 2,321,959 227,842 3,509,897 666,293 245.3% 110.0% 115.0% -1.2% -0.5%

692 Kermit <100 962,348 211,783 1,830,591 410,890 192.8% 120.0% 115.0% 3.9% 0.0%

10694 Kerrville >100 7,024,154 1,231,738 8,414,646 1,711,332 132.6% 110.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

20694 Kerrville Public Utility <100 1,655,533 321,614 1,346,696 257,581 80.5% 110.0% 105.0% 0.7% 0.0%

10696 Kilgore >100 3,251,026 480,475 3,620,861 851,444 155.3% 122.0% 125.0% 1.8% 0.0%

698 Killeen >100 19,388,837 3,401,092 20,224,124 3,727,400 107.8% 110.0% 107.8% 4.4% 0.0%

700 Kingsville >100 5,019,032 821,943 6,578,966 1,570,254 171.1% 125.0% 125.0% 0.3% 0.0%

701 Kirby <100 1,228,960 104,394 2,411,143 180,757 180.8% 120.0% 115.0% 2.3% 0.0%

702 Kirbyville <100 602,487 40,959 1,421,114 101,627 244.0% 120.0% 115.0% -1.8% -0.9%

704 Knox City <11 191,259 2,542 318,330 0 55.5% 85.0% 80.0% 0.2% 0.0%

708 Kountze <100 735,193 58,889 1,696,114 33,437 114.8% 95.0% 100.0% 1.5% 0.0%

709 Kress <6 17,536 11,727 37,900 0 72.0% 75.0% 75.0% -11.5% -1.0%

699 Krugerville <11 99,413 5,801 305,283 0 102.4% 75.0% 80.0% - -

707 Krum <100 919,269 42,606 1,442,738 211,688 383.5% 95.0% 100.0% 4.6% 0.0%

710 Kyle >100 4,358,104 339,793 3,309,843 294,561 83.1% 105.0% 100.0% 11.9% 0.0%

725 La Coste <11 128,284 26,560 127,542 0 33.1% 85.0% 80.0% 1.7% 0.0%

714 La Feria <100 1,181,868 169,007 1,800,472 232,451 142.5% 110.0% 115.0% 1.4% 0.0%

716 La Grange <100 957,342 169,634 911,024 80,846 63.5% 110.0% 105.0% 2.5% 0.0%

723 La Grulla <16 339,413 22,924 594,243 87,139 311.8% 95.0% 100.0% -1.0% -0.4%

721 La Marque >100 3,522,422 370,490 4,941,453 850,414 199.8% 125.0% 125.0% -1.0% -0.4%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



728 La Porte >100 7,965,116 1,834,344 8,615,126 1,963,026 107.4% 115.0% 110.0% 0.5% 0.0%

731 La Vernia <16 272,080 6,180 241,845 58,777 663.7% 85.0% 90.0% - -

711 Lacy-Lakeview <100 1,097,469 98,879 1,198,937 72,163 85.1% 116.0% 111.0% 2.0% 0.0%

712 Ladonia <6 64,707 2,349 118,741 0 61.2% 75.0% 75.0% 10.7% 0.0%

713 Lago Vista <100 1,731,144 151,374 2,048,904 159,912 109.9% 110.0% 109.9% 5.8% 0.0%

705 Laguna Vista <16 384,807 32,728 677,114 65,920 192.9% 85.0% 90.0% 8.6% 0.0%

717 Lake Dallas <100 1,059,099 108,264 1,203,029 200,870 161.6% 118.0% 115.0% 1.4% 0.0%

718 Lake Jackson >100 4,527,311 929,645 4,991,029 1,065,220 113.1% 108.0% 113.0% 0.1% 0.0%

719 Lake Worth <100 2,326,951 415,905 2,276,050 185,330 62.3% 119.0% 114.0% 1.5% 0.0%

727 Lakeport <6 92,016 20,990 87,465 24,221 108.6% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

715 Lakeside <11 303,149 32,134 752,037 104,144 298.8% 85.0% 85.0% 1.8% 0.0%

729 Lakeside City <6 43,676 26,776 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

720 Lakeway <100 2,545,708 334,011 2,304,480 735,502 177.0% 118.0% 115.0% 4.2% 0.0%

722 Lamesa <100 1,823,857 253,043 3,467,944 496,756 194.3% 125.0% 115.0% -1.3% -0.6%

724 Lampasas >100 2,171,253 317,166 2,031,476 171,697 67.3% 115.0% 110.0% 3.3% 0.0%

726 Lancaster >100 7,923,244 1,174,201 10,424,253 2,361,308 177.9% 125.0% 125.0% -0.1% 0.0%

730 Laredo >100 37,168,109 9,412,612 25,343,394 5,802,196 63.8% 90.0% 85.0% 1.1% 0.0%

733 Lavon <16 475,739 55,806 594,861 182,320 259.5% 85.0% 90.0% 2.2% 0.0%

736 League City >100 12,496,050 1,992,184 11,124,619 2,962,089 128.8% 115.0% 120.0% 3.1% 0.0%

737 Leander >100 5,052,136 541,747 3,947,096 831,714 128.4% 90.0% 95.0% 8.2% 0.0%

739 Leon Valley <100 1,652,612 296,718 1,495,469 465,732 134.8% 91.0% 96.0% 0.0% 0.0%

738 Leonard <100 385,085 36,249 717,459 75,278 200.6% 95.0% 100.0% 2.8% 0.0%

740 Levelland <100 2,168,383 181,899 1,925,795 272,088 129.3% 107.0% 112.0% 2.6% 0.0%

742 Lewisville >100 13,767,979 4,413,413 10,353,620 2,441,206 61.9% 90.0% 85.0% 1.5% 0.0%

744 Lexington <11 309,721 30,349 745,503 85,222 267.4% 85.0% 85.0% 1.7% 0.0%

746 Liberty <100 2,661,200 288,245 5,083,128 810,680 251.2% 110.0% 115.0% -1.4% -0.6%

745 Liberty Hill <16 327,518 0 559,085 0 123.6% 100.0% 100.0% - -

748 Lindale <100 1,047,375 165,181 1,228,296 229,744 131.8% 95.0% 100.0% 3.4% 0.0%

750 Linden <16 205,333 36,790 304,467 0 49.4% 95.0% 90.0% 3.6% 0.0%

755 Lipan <6 68,474 12,567 46,695 23,801 149.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.6% 0.0%

751 Little Elm >100 5,144,987 414,338 4,895,945 750,424 152.5% 104.0% 109.0% 9.2% 0.0%

752 Littlefield <100 1,146,439 140,124 1,712,099 153,276 122.7% 115.0% 115.0% -0.9% -0.4%

753 Live Oak >100 2,050,467 434,967 2,029,280 516,843 112.2% 109.0% 112.2% 0.3% 0.0%

754 Livingston <100 1,460,925 386,438 973,256 272,287 69.2% 90.0% 85.0% 1.4% 0.0%

756 Llano <100 837,096 185,451 1,189,114 231,276 130.5% 120.0% 115.0% -1.6% -0.7%

758 Lockhart >100 3,475,546 359,859 5,469,545 966,776 231.6% 125.0% 125.0% -1.2% -0.6%

760 Lockney <6 184,954 6,226 348,320 52,999 630.3% 85.0% 75.0% -6.0% -1.0%

765 Lone Star <11 236,365 50,343 680,509 61,363 177.2% 100.0% 85.0% -2.2% -1.0%

766 Longview >100 14,354,793 2,102,795 14,842,700 2,167,679 103.2% 116.0% 111.0% 0.7% 0.0%

768 Loraine <6 48,028 7,001 98,981 59,152 631.9% 75.0% 75.0% 1.2% 0.0%

769 Lorena <100 333,897 36,503 582,666 159,700 349.8% 95.0% 100.0% 0.9% 0.0%

770 Lorenzo <11 184,279 3,588 301,935 0 54.6% 85.0% 80.0% 5.6% 0.0%

771 Los Fresnos <100 1,065,405 89,024 1,355,974 83,366 104.9% 95.0% 100.0% 3.6% 0.0%

773 Lott <11 280,637 2,856 759,236 61,463 1525.0% 85.0% 85.0% 1.7% 0.0%

778 Lubbock >100 37,172,710 7,183,043 31,049,967 7,019,320 93.0% 90.0% 93.0% 1.1% 0.0%

779 Lucas <100 649,051 55,309 818,170 292,284 394.3% 95.0% 100.0% 6.6% 0.0%

782 Lufkin >100 7,485,201 1,205,450 8,447,837 1,134,763 100.4% 115.0% 110.0% 0.2% 0.0%

784 Luling <100 1,768,351 238,056 2,584,936 327,519 140.4% 125.0% 115.0% 1.6% 0.0%

785 Lumberton <100 647,779 168,049 476,888 195,537 102.1% 95.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

786 Lyford <100 99,588 39,892 150,852 0 50.5% 100.0% 95.0% - -

787 Lytle <100 461,803 52,746 385,547 42,532 81.6% 110.0% 105.0% 3.3% 0.0%

790 Madisonville <100 807,867 73,913 1,426,664 147,028 191.5% 120.0% 115.0% 0.9% 0.0%

791 Magnolia <100 645,062 78,486 1,176,421 449,730 442.8% 95.0% 100.0% 2.4% 0.0%

792 Malakoff <100 436,818 91,798 700,601 34,632 78.6% 110.0% 105.0% 2.6% 0.0%

796 Manor <100 1,213,033 122,579 1,864,696 122,285 117.7% 95.0% 100.0% 3.5% 0.0%

798 Mansfield >100 12,764,304 2,525,355 10,635,032 1,343,190 63.2% 90.0% 85.0% 2.0% 0.0%

799 Manvel <100 806,689 58,483 1,111,865 101,990 162.2% 95.0% 100.0% 4.5% 0.0%

800 Marble Falls >100 2,859,970 410,823 2,977,952 610,401 133.8% 115.0% 120.0% 0.6% 0.0%

802 Marfa <100 536,115 50,524 880,473 104,819 193.1% 110.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

804 Marion <16 177,388 46,679 190,774 41,996 95.8% 85.0% 90.0% 2.4% 0.0%

806 Marlin <100 1,670,719 46,549 3,506,703 187,017 337.8% 120.0% 115.0% -4.2% -1.0%

810 Marshall >100 3,900,140 712,830 3,451,019 782,640 102.7% 75.0% 80.0% -1.1% -0.5%

812 Mart <16 440,879 25,331 1,185,826 149,257 482.5% 100.0% 100.0% 0.1% 0.0%

814 Mason <100 602,571 51,652 943,541 23,769 82.9% 110.0% 105.0% 3.2% 0.0%

816 Matador <6 55,940 7,845 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% - -

818 Mathis <100 1,202,315 82,684 2,806,929 283,474 306.4% 120.0% 115.0% 0.7% 0.0%

822 Maypearl <11 144,861 6,371 158,501 37,028 424.0% 85.0% 85.0% 1.9% 0.0%

824 McAllen >100 31,621,794 6,321,659 28,180,918 6,494,019 98.2% 90.0% 95.0% 1.7% 0.0%

826 McCamey <11 116,626 43,882 106,762 0 30.5% 85.0% 80.0% 1.8% 0.0%

828 McGregor <100 1,242,058 84,682 1,827,320 350,107 324.7% 120.0% 115.0% 1.2% 0.0%

830 McKinney >100 22,305,242 5,131,923 15,115,776 5,844,850 98.5% 75.0% 80.0% 4.8% 0.0%

832 McLean <11 150,293 28,874 288,856 84,128 258.3% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0%

831 Meadowlakes <16 474,171 0 657,769 0 112.9% 100.0% 100.0% - -

835 Meadows Place <100 639,695 86,178 619,360 166,426 161.0% 110.0% 115.0% -1.3% -0.6%

837 Melissa <100 871,999 154,479 949,061 154,463 102.9% 95.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.0%

1501 Memorial Villages Police <100 683,847 311,156 658,143 390,194 115.7% 95.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

840 Memphis <100 295,702 21,265 623,250 0 70.3% 110.0% 105.0% -1.4% -0.7%

842 Menard <11 92,602 32,944 117,347 57,504 158.6% 85.0% 85.0% -1.4% -0.6%

844 Mercedes >100 2,293,135 193,656 2,124,186 266,307 122.6% 90.0% 95.0% 4.0% 0.0%

846 Meridian <11 187,225 32,863 320,373 60,905 180.6% 85.0% 85.0% 0.3% 0.0%

848 Merkel <16 334,144 33,677 604,178 125,483 308.7% 95.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

852 Mertzon <11 119,713 9,754 301,594 63,855 520.4% 75.0% 80.0% - -

854 Mesquite >100 22,397,137 5,627,327 15,566,767 3,304,473 62.3% 90.0% 85.0% 0.7% 0.0%

856 Mexia >100 2,685,050 262,131 4,382,902 383,513 151.9% 125.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

860 Midland >100 16,806,681 3,434,804 21,798,750 4,297,350 126.6% 104.0% 109.0% 0.4% 0.0%

862 Midlothian >100 4,636,004 652,990 4,160,850 707,174 102.1% 105.0% 102.1% 3.8% 0.0%

864 Miles <6 87,641 4,924 92,977 36,802 533.6% 75.0% 75.0% 7.1% 0.0%

865 Milford <6 116,257 21,203 181,592 0 52.1% 85.0% 75.0% -2.9% -1.0%

868 Mineola <100 1,105,601 161,429 1,463,696 321,769 177.0% 110.0% 115.0% 1.7% 0.0%

870 Mineral Wells >100 4,137,145 415,382 5,201,778 444,086 113.2% 125.0% 120.0% 0.4% 0.0%

874 Mission >100 11,477,405 1,797,446 9,906,249 2,333,862 115.3% 99.0% 104.0% 3.3% 0.0%

875 Missouri City >100 8,998,980 1,434,224 8,466,495 1,450,970 98.8% 95.0% 98.8% 1.5% 0.0%

876 Monahans <100 1,401,745 330,274 2,109,159 350,704 120.9% 110.0% 115.0% 1.2% 0.0%

887 Mont Belvieu <100 1,717,402 450,033 1,536,620 392,850 88.0% 101.0% 96.0% 1.9% 0.0%

877 Montgomery <100 570,065 38,000 1,303,809 170,931 376.1% 95.0% 100.0% 0.7% 0.0%

878 Moody <11 96,384 31,061 127,313 35,943 121.2% 85.0% 85.0% 1.5% 0.0%

883 Morgan's Point <16 256,700 108,853 289,766 304,213 223.9% 95.0% 100.0% 1.5% 0.0%

882 Morgan's Point Resort <100 682,700 42,258 901,955 225,746 400.2% 110.0% 115.0% -1.4% -0.7%

884 Morton <11 76,409 94,870 42,617 108,718 95.0% 85.0% 85.0% -0.4% -0.2%

886 Moulton <16 163,438 24,517 377,881 140,214 458.3% 85.0% 90.0% 0.1% 0.0%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



890 Mount Enterprise <6 39,480 3,607 14,137 0 11.9% 75.0% 75.0% -0.4% -0.2%

892 Mt. Pleasant >100 3,309,980 429,243 3,609,155 801,477 160.8% 106.0% 111.0% 0.2% 0.0%

894 Mt. Vernon <100 516,333 87,088 781,044 124,089 145.4% 120.0% 115.0% -0.4% -0.2%

896 Muenster <16 298,444 12,548 585,577 34,656 249.5% 85.0% 90.0% 3.5% 0.0%

898 Muleshoe <100 558,252 99,604 830,584 128,991 135.9% 115.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

903 Murphy >100 2,619,526 515,450 3,196,566 1,550,425 241.2% 110.0% 115.0% 6.5% 0.0%

10904 Nacogdoches >100 5,962,872 1,302,312 5,224,754 1,058,930 83.4% 115.0% 110.0% 0.2% 0.0%

906 Naples <16 254,581 8,439 507,441 0 66.4% 85.0% 80.0% 1.5% 0.0%

907 Nash <100 406,248 85,090 572,360 21,113 63.5% 110.0% 105.0% -0.5% -0.2%

905 Nassau Bay <100 980,306 234,687 1,099,967 258,616 110.9% 85.0% 90.0% 0.8% 0.0%

909 Natalia <11 189,493 16,630 439,984 81,013 402.2% 85.0% 85.0% - -

908 Navasota <100 2,004,146 326,166 2,760,947 107,892 68.0% 125.0% 115.0% 2.5% 0.0%

910 Nederland >100 1,633,154 598,386 707,381 454,294 65.1% 75.0% 75.0% 1.4% 0.0%

912 Needville <16 182,340 38,764 235,623 40,345 112.5% 100.0% 100.0% -0.9% -0.4%

914 New Boston <100 596,867 108,030 872,324 220,554 184.8% 109.0% 114.0% 1.8% 0.0%

10916 New Braunfels >100 11,953,448 2,117,835 10,156,603 2,506,786 107.2% 90.0% 95.0% 4.2% 0.0%

20916 New Braunfels Utilities >100 6,096,424 675,119 5,837,427 197,548 51.4% 90.0% 85.0% 1.6% 0.0%

915 New Deal <6 86,897 28,437 234,421 44,480 194.2% 75.0% 75.0% -1.9% -0.9%

918 New London <11 149,518 34,804 235,952 34,288 118.3% 85.0% 85.0% 0.3% 0.0%

919 New Summerfield <11 313,907 7,739 535,552 68,197 644.3% 85.0% 85.0% 3.9% 0.0%

917 New Waverly <6 64,807 26,956 32,941 33,672 100.2% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

920 Newton <100 438,781 88,367 286,028 45,899 56.4% 95.0% 90.0% 0.0% 0.0%

922 Nixon <100 305,097 30,240 495,652 50,034 164.5% 85.0% 90.0% 7.0% 0.0%

924 Nocona <100 600,754 62,570 929,981 66,788 122.8% 110.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

928 Normangee <11 116,149 2,953 270,734 34,205 849.9% 75.0% 80.0% 6.6% 0.0%

931 North Richland Hills >100 11,121,892 2,854,502 9,146,799 2,166,417 78.0% 96.0% 91.0% 0.8% 0.0%

930 Northlake <100 521,687 95,766 776,432 153,863 156.7% 95.0% 100.0% 8.2% 0.0%

936 Oak Point <100 504,642 185,983 1,232,908 567,764 285.0% 95.0% 100.0% 3.7% 0.0%

937 Oak Ridge North <100 1,185,332 221,065 1,167,963 304,519 124.7% 107.0% 112.0% 3.1% 0.0%

942 Odem <16 219,562 26,501 174,879 45,341 140.6% 85.0% 90.0% 2.0% 0.0%

944 Odessa >100 17,890,310 2,243,420 23,926,764 2,582,924 121.3% 118.0% 121.3% 0.2% 0.0%

935 O'Donnell <6 63,330 1,850 155,518 28,797 1119.8% 75.0% 75.0% -6.6% -1.0%

945 Oglesby <6 23,425 1,683 41,093 0 58.5% 75.0% 75.0% -1.5% -0.7%

949 Old River-Winfree <6 33,277 0 44,214 0 111.0% 75.0% 75.0% 4.6% 0.0%

950 Olmos Park <100 779,633 198,390 1,460,451 454,288 215.1% 110.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

951 Olney <100 544,127 40,282 958,476 152,176 310.6% 95.0% 100.0% -2.4% -1.0%

953 Omaha <11 100,284 15,125 56,933 30,000 151.2% 85.0% 85.0% 4.6% 0.0%

954 Onalaska <16 305,776 10,467 608,339 0 66.3% 85.0% 80.0% 1.7% 0.0%

958 Orange >100 2,479,230 800,947 1,951,195 798,710 92.7% 75.0% 80.0% 0.3% 0.0%

960 Orange Grove <16 236,565 23,288 454,463 0 64.0% 85.0% 80.0% 1.4% 0.0%

959 Ore City <11 290,557 7,585 525,652 0 60.3% 85.0% 80.0% 2.2% 0.0%

962 Overton <100 420,383 56,727 864,346 78,090 160.3% 110.0% 115.0% 1.9% 0.0%

961 Ovilla <100 527,421 74,546 921,840 397,010 413.3% 95.0% 100.0% 3.2% 0.0%

963 Oyster Creek <100 390,187 74,764 435,488 0 37.2% 102.0% 97.0% 1.7% 0.0%

964 Paducah <16 252,551 19,768 372,209 65,850 271.2% 85.0% 90.0% -0.8% -0.4%

966 Palacios <100 926,050 56,253 1,729,480 36,486 105.5% 120.0% 115.0% -0.5% -0.2%

968 Palestine >100 4,054,318 360,920 4,823,806 1,192,857 260.0% 125.0% 125.0% 0.3% 0.0%

970 Palmer <100 706,025 37,047 871,344 87,424 198.5% 95.0% 100.0% 3.4% 0.0%

969 Palmhurst <100 630,357 13,558 961,923 67,779 384.1% 85.0% 90.0% 18.2% 0.0%

971 Palmview <100 599,928 105,819 827,781 192,039 167.0% 85.0% 90.0% - -

972 Pampa >100 3,929,203 370,950 5,692,798 390,840 118.5% 125.0% 120.0% 0.8% 0.0%

974 Panhandle <100 368,084 115,415 423,403 77,432 83.1% 110.0% 105.0% 1.0% 0.0%

973 Panorama Village <16 90,521 59,671 138,861 41,417 97.4% 85.0% 90.0% 1.0% 0.0%

975 Pantego <100 1,419,435 156,736 2,833,479 347,787 214.5% 110.0% 115.0% -1.4% -0.6%

976 Paris >100 5,107,612 1,072,530 4,699,740 1,357,033 115.0% 111.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

977 Parker <100 527,047 114,988 421,992 86,741 77.0% 95.0% 90.0% 4.0% 0.0%

978 Pasadena >100 19,595,308 4,925,087 13,581,817 4,000,927 77.3% 90.0% 85.0% -0.8% -0.3%

983 Pearland >100 15,459,268 2,141,400 15,936,700 3,096,692 130.8% 110.0% 115.0% 5.3% 0.0%

984 Pearsall <100 1,342,982 113,734 2,603,641 130,867 141.3% 110.0% 115.0% 4.4% 0.0%

988 Pecos City >100 2,979,095 259,345 4,516,872 403,474 154.3% 105.0% 110.0% 1.5% 0.0%

994 Perryton <100 1,781,385 214,431 3,313,986 245,068 138.2% 125.0% 115.0% 2.1% 0.0%

1000 Pflugerville >100 6,656,884 1,194,051 6,652,535 1,728,245 129.8% 106.0% 111.0% 5.6% 0.0%

1002 Pharr >100 11,293,751 1,524,558 10,234,592 1,446,200 93.4% 103.0% 98.0% 2.9% 0.0%

1004 Pilot Point <100 922,675 93,036 1,871,736 246,536 244.3% 95.0% 100.0% 2.9% 0.0%

1005 Pinehurst <100 443,725 117,570 534,169 267,469 191.8% 120.0% 115.0% -1.6% -0.8%

1003 Pineland <16 101,381 23,533 185,478 0 61.0% 85.0% 80.0% 2.0% 0.0%

1001 Piney Point Village <6 212,605 24,212 340,854 71,248 249.6% 85.0% 75.0% 4.8% 0.0%

1006 Pittsburg <100 829,291 106,293 1,592,130 88,526 119.5% 120.0% 115.0% -1.6% -0.8%

1007 Plains <11 68,635 62,718 47,499 67,155 94.5% 85.0% 85.0% 1.0% 0.0%

1008 Plainview >100 2,901,638 721,198 3,567,303 881,495 122.5% 125.0% 122.5% -1.2% -0.6%

1010 Plano >100 44,848,623 12,512,719 34,503,672 6,876,232 62.3% 79.0% 75.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1012 Pleasanton <100 2,003,796 318,392 2,545,407 525,486 152.4% 110.0% 115.0% 3.1% 0.0%

1013 Point <11 210,123 2,570 463,411 48,048 1319.8% 85.0% 85.0% -1.2% -0.6%

1017 Ponder <11 271,960 30,164 244,609 102,489 256.5% 85.0% 85.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1014 Port Aransas >100 2,624,347 221,248 3,762,922 535,857 209.3% 125.0% 125.0% 1.7% 0.0%

11016 Port Arthur >100 11,102,483 2,473,110 6,276,099 1,335,984 54.9% 90.0% 85.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1018 Port Isabel <100 1,784,124 191,258 2,910,764 249,360 141.3% 125.0% 115.0% 2.3% 0.0%

1020 Port Lavaca <100 2,317,920 265,409 4,031,206 549,799 196.1% 125.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1022 Port Neches <100 1,567,708 417,733 795,042 360,845 74.5% 75.0% 75.0% -0.4% -0.2%

1019 Portland >100 2,706,910 334,120 3,827,731 341,617 115.3% 110.0% 115.0% 3.0% 0.0%

1024 Post <16 281,877 44,237 313,735 125,521 226.3% 95.0% 100.0% -0.8% -0.3%

1026 Poteet <100 521,381 48,639 1,306,981 142,762 279.2% 110.0% 115.0% 2.7% 0.0%

1028 Poth <16 206,260 32,629 207,766 0 33.6% 85.0% 80.0% 5.9% 0.0%

1030 Pottsboro <100 552,079 39,614 604,563 59,550 136.7% 95.0% 100.0% 1.9% 0.0%

1032 Premont <100 299,808 48,109 414,011 24,104 79.4% 95.0% 90.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1029 Presidio <100 867,037 107,706 1,174,543 168,783 149.6% 95.0% 100.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1033 Primera <100 291,410 33,101 496,062 50,027 157.5% 95.0% 100.0% 4.1% 0.0%

1034 Princeton <100 1,269,404 110,992 1,845,278 442,094 314.0% 110.0% 115.0% 5.8% 0.0%

1036 Prosper <100 2,514,500 344,889 2,375,229 954,697 216.0% 95.0% 100.0% 15.7% 0.0%

1042 Quanah <100 172,914 72,469 226,785 0 43.7% 119.0% 114.0% -2.7% -1.0%

1045 Queen City <16 290,185 28,794 537,946 64,012 210.0% 95.0% 100.0% 5.9% 0.0%

1044 Quinlan <16 339,069 11,523 634,260 0 62.4% 85.0% 80.0% 11.8% 0.0%

1047 Quintana <6 90,402 0 209,543 0 143.9% 75.0% 75.0% 20.0% 0.0%

1046 Quitaque <6 12,845 14,708 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 3.2% 0.0%

1048 Quitman <100 478,178 90,280 697,976 114,785 133.4% 95.0% 100.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1050 Ralls <11 346,198 9,475 640,624 73,800 580.9% 95.0% 85.0% -2.0% -1.0%

1051 Rancho Viejo <11 251,875 21,872 216,155 0 28.6% 85.0% 80.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1052 Ranger <100 576,135 24,060 1,805,632 65,165 285.0% 110.0% 115.0% 2.1% 0.0%

1054 Rankin <6 33,748 27,399 58,941 0 58.2% 75.0% 75.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1055 Ransom Canyon <16 218,143 41,235 91,318 0 14.0% 85.0% 80.0% 1.2% 0.0%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



1058 Raymondville <100 1,276,080 195,825 1,672,128 271,061 136.0% 125.0% 115.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1061 Red Oak <100 2,762,148 182,618 3,609,797 720,670 306.7% 110.0% 115.0% 3.5% 0.0%

1062 Redwater <11 195,148 9,784 275,342 54,029 415.2% 85.0% 85.0% - -

1064 Refugio <100 708,202 87,526 1,384,220 105,089 145.2% 120.0% 115.0% -0.9% -0.4%

1065 Reklaw <6 87,987 45,055 142,725 40,301 113.7% 85.0% 75.0% -2.2% -1.0%

1066 Reno (Lamar County) <16 234,311 50,603 329,851 177,975 281.4% 95.0% 100.0% -0.6% -0.2%

1069 Reno (Parker County) <16 431,745 0 1,079,219 0 150.0% 85.0% 90.0% 6.8% 0.0%

1067 Rhome <16 303,174 23,034 753,549 0 82.9% 85.0% 82.9% 3.6% 0.0%

1068 Rice <11 176,787 18,580 487,473 63,680 320.4% 75.0% 80.0% 5.4% 0.0%

1070 Richardson >100 17,182,309 10,720,469 11,356,232 4,766,401 51.7% 90.0% 85.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1073 Richland Hills <100 1,646,989 236,669 2,285,298 291,142 128.3% 110.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1076 Richmond >100 3,249,845 468,122 2,833,914 481,225 97.6% 110.0% 105.0% 2.3% 0.0%

1077 Richwood <100 438,284 40,629 806,108 0 61.3% 95.0% 90.0% 2.3% 0.0%

1072 Riesel <11 150,291 9,419 295,959 28,865 269.9% 85.0% 85.0% - -

1075 Rio Grande City >100 2,989,353 297,782 3,716,872 344,955 118.7% 110.0% 115.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1079 Rio Vista <11 216,092 13,387 550,275 0 84.9% 85.0% 84.9% 0.3% 0.0%

1080 Rising Star <11 145,152 11,257 361,757 100,914 680.7% 85.0% 85.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1082 River Oaks <100 1,292,978 143,335 1,418,435 315,209 183.2% 115.0% 115.0% -0.1% 0.0%

1084 Roanoke >100 3,508,061 734,914 2,544,625 1,075,606 121.8% 90.0% 95.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1088 Robert Lee <6 109,755 13,772 150,921 21,133 148.1% 75.0% 75.0% -3.5% -1.0%

1089 Robinson <100 1,404,370 261,776 1,797,710 383,762 140.4% 110.0% 115.0% 3.6% 0.0%

21090 Robstown >100 2,905,597 212,255 2,726,171 225,770 102.2% 125.0% 120.0% 3.2% 0.0%

11090 Robstown Utility Systems <100 889,615 166,016 1,381,867 79,183 83.6% 110.0% 105.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1092 Roby <6 85,803 9,094 173,344 21,483 224.8% 75.0% 75.0% -1.9% -0.9%

1096 Rockdale <100 984,679 130,020 1,796,036 401,321 266.6% 110.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1098 Rockport >100 2,153,276 279,582 2,375,964 200,258 84.5% 108.0% 103.0% 2.4% 0.0%

1100 Rocksprings <6 126,568 0 241,323 0 130.2% 85.0% 75.0% 2.5% 0.0%

1102 Rockwall >100 6,146,859 1,624,575 4,197,138 1,075,797 66.9% 75.0% 75.0% 2.7% 0.0%

1104 Rogers <16 218,608 18,880 537,834 34,067 202.3% 85.0% 90.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1105 Rollingwood <16 402,269 47,437 757,389 106,704 212.7% 95.0% 100.0% 5.4% 0.0%

1106 Roma >100 1,771,734 213,878 2,178,573 203,268 104.3% 110.0% 105.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1109 Roscoe <6 108,042 37,584 102,240 0 31.5% 85.0% 75.0% -3.5% -1.0%

1112 Rosebud <16 323,832 5,395 768,715 21,052 339.3% 95.0% 100.0% -0.5% -0.2%

1114 Rosenberg >100 5,767,057 895,928 6,132,540 1,680,540 160.5% 110.0% 115.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1116 Rotan <6 86,991 29,941 184,578 0 70.7% 85.0% 75.0% -3.9% -1.0%

1118 Round Rock >100 20,247,408 4,686,675 16,015,926 4,104,166 84.7% 90.0% 85.0% 1.9% 0.0%

1119 Rowlett >100 8,428,079 2,118,895 8,794,917 4,024,057 161.4% 110.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1120 Royse City <100 1,742,283 108,125 2,322,072 239,926 192.4% 95.0% 100.0% 3.8% 0.0%

1122 Rule <6 50,854 2,203 29,744 21,708 676.3% 75.0% 75.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1123 Runaway Bay <16 408,896 23,401 1,034,349 94,255 352.8% 95.0% 100.0% -2.0% -0.9%

1124 Runge <11 87,010 0 175,443 0 133.9% 75.0% 80.0% -1.6% -0.7%

1126 Rusk <100 924,962 65,300 872,748 74,435 107.4% 110.0% 107.4% 0.9% 0.0%

1128 Sabinal <100 325,893 13,896 869,928 35,908 261.3% 95.0% 100.0% 1.5% 0.0%

1129 Sachse >100 3,150,383 569,987 3,828,789 1,264,305 188.4% 125.0% 125.0% 3.4% 0.0%

1131 Saginaw >100 2,824,473 481,188 2,352,942 547,689 103.6% 75.0% 80.0% 2.0% 0.0%

1130 Saint Jo <11 206,051 12,603 543,685 57,535 392.3% 85.0% 85.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1133 Salado <11 176,789 12,602 182,682 41,937 256.3% 85.0% 85.0% 5.1% 0.0%

1132 San Angelo >100 13,865,457 2,547,168 16,657,741 3,252,692 125.2% 111.0% 116.0% -0.5% -0.2%

21136 San Antonio >100 137,217,560 29,387,406 107,799,251 26,216,268 85.7% 90.0% 85.7% 0.1% 0.0%

11136 San Antonio Water System >100 30,789,332 7,897,672 20,390,966 5,349,248 67.2% 90.0% 85.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1138 San Augustine <100 731,327 110,259 1,168,028 166,973 154.2% 120.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1140 San Benito >100 3,098,596 384,104 3,556,461 392,501 106.4% 106.0% 106.4% 1.9% 0.0%

1144 San Felipe <6 78,877 26,530 136,810 65,830 223.2% 85.0% 75.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1148 San Juan >100 4,607,484 706,537 5,717,706 1,256,709 159.9% 110.0% 115.0% 3.5% 0.0%

1150 San Marcos >100 12,323,104 2,345,417 10,746,739 2,320,537 95.0% 105.0% 100.0% 2.8% 0.0%

1152 San Saba <100 993,006 109,526 893,124 25,968 45.8% 105.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

1146 Sanger <100 1,519,262 309,271 1,640,134 378,602 117.6% 125.0% 115.0% 1.4% 0.0%

1153 Sansom Park <100 1,161,254 24,972 2,923,036 193,627 600.8% 110.0% 115.0% 3.1% 0.0%

1155 Santa Fe <100 1,569,812 192,711 2,480,409 191,110 118.8% 110.0% 115.0% 1.6% 0.0%

1158 Savoy <6 126,050 12,750 397,155 71,837 480.6% 85.0% 75.0% -2.7% -1.0%

1159 Schertz >100 7,618,524 919,998 7,044,049 1,129,070 112.6% 90.0% 95.0% 4.6% 0.0%

1160 Schulenburg <100 623,247 96,089 579,131 100,497 100.7% 95.0% 100.0% -0.6% -0.3%

1161 Seabrook <100 1,723,278 523,274 1,586,205 356,527 76.1% 90.0% 85.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1162 Seadrift <11 125,603 57,377 137,032 0 36.4% 85.0% 80.0% 16.5% 0.0%

1164 Seagoville <100 2,144,027 299,750 2,813,409 358,058 123.4% 118.0% 115.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1166 Seagraves <16 416,162 17,028 985,336 0 78.9% 100.0% 95.0% 4.2% 0.0%

1167 Sealy <100 1,198,322 259,043 1,160,719 283,092 105.1% 117.0% 112.0% 1.4% 0.0%

1168 Seguin >100 6,355,296 1,112,790 6,849,860 1,305,743 114.2% 110.0% 114.2% 1.8% 0.0%

1169 Selma <100 2,180,596 208,991 2,060,428 383,095 153.7% 95.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.0%

1170 Seminole <100 1,584,595 210,687 2,583,103 332,202 159.5% 120.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1171 Seven Points <100 605,252 12,485 1,690,983 51,201 366.5% 110.0% 115.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1172 Seymour <100 533,984 113,214 803,472 206,974 172.0% 118.0% 115.0% -1.7% -0.8%

1177 Shallowater <16 291,814 33,878 274,067 123,173 273.7% 95.0% 100.0% 3.2% 0.0%

1174 Shamrock <100 294,271 33,594 325,066 48,842 133.7% 110.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1173 Shavano Park <100 1,310,544 52,831 2,289,272 173,267 276.9% 110.0% 115.0% 3.6% 0.0%

1175 Shenandoah <100 2,225,207 250,717 2,524,346 610,014 200.0% 88.0% 93.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1181 Shepherd <11 228,441 18,210 319,289 0 46.6% 85.0% 80.0% 1.8% 0.0%

1176 Sherman >100 9,211,546 1,665,304 7,569,771 1,942,671 105.2% 95.0% 100.0% -0.2% -0.1%

1178 Shiner <100 348,334 71,217 403,202 78,993 112.5% 96.0% 101.0% 1.0% 0.0%

1179 Shoreacres <16 401,722 29,854 709,553 148,501 390.5% 95.0% 100.0% -0.6% -0.2%

1180 Silsbee <100 1,687,876 199,225 2,070,699 85,561 69.5% 110.0% 105.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1182 Silverton <6 26,957 5,407 28,475 0 35.2% 75.0% 75.0% -3.1% -1.0%

1184 Sinton <100 1,237,399 134,651 2,039,672 181,477 144.8% 120.0% 115.0% 1.8% 0.0%

1185 Skellytown <6 161,397 1,533 572,173 27,540 1316.2% 75.0% 75.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1186 Slaton <100 1,230,949 168,466 2,262,593 260,922 164.5% 120.0% 115.0% -0.4% -0.1%

1188 Smithville <100 1,297,697 108,061 1,866,561 406,335 298.6% 120.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1189 Smyer <6 1,097 25,698 0 37,446 97.1% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1190 Snyder <100 1,956,055 327,422 2,439,760 291,309 100.9% 115.0% 110.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1191 Somerset <11 311,056 5,172 668,275 39,172 576.5% 85.0% 85.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1192 Somerville <16 331,323 52,500 622,672 48,240 123.9% 100.0% 100.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1194 Sonora <100 822,459 63,396 1,449,123 102,936 167.0% 110.0% 115.0% 2.2% 0.0%

1196 Sour Lake <11 311,232 44,600 739,037 59,131 167.5% 95.0% 85.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1198 South Houston >100 2,192,844 342,179 2,340,213 445,834 122.4% 110.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1199 South Padre Island >100 3,642,838 487,908 3,858,306 778,819 141.7% 90.0% 95.0% 3.5% 0.0%

1197 Southlake >100 7,232,465 2,140,036 6,320,439 2,330,108 101.7% 105.0% 101.7% 2.8% 0.0%

1202 Southside Place <100 350,596 135,489 324,999 162,734 111.0% 94.0% 99.0% 0.6% 0.0%

1204 Spearman <100 674,453 31,081 1,481,187 74,346 232.7% 120.0% 115.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1205 Spring Valley <100 602,709 255,666 1,024,401 162,050 98.9% 95.0% 98.9% 0.8% 0.0%

1203 Springtown <100 1,200,986 53,724 1,845,896 188,327 284.9% 95.0% 100.0% 2.9% 0.0%

1206 Spur <11 140,892 37,186 312,469 35,134 136.9% 85.0% 85.0% -0.7% -0.3%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



1207 Stafford >100 2,930,079 528,776 2,064,311 448,765 80.1% 82.0% 80.1% 2.5% 0.0%

1208 Stamford <100 621,982 45,834 1,052,047 110,396 217.0% 110.0% 115.0% 0.6% 0.0%

1210 Stanton <100 375,049 121,984 616,809 168,479 146.9% 110.0% 115.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1211 Star Harbor <6 114,883 13,037 136,408 0 39.6% 75.0% 75.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1212 Stephenville >100 2,571,476 516,548 2,284,873 338,722 73.3% 90.0% 85.0% 1.7% 0.0%

1213 Sterling City <11 59,804 35,109 43,533 0 24.3% 85.0% 80.0% -0.6% -0.3%

1214 Stinnett <11 264,228 71,979 424,379 303,626 334.8% 95.0% 85.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1218 Stratford <16 355,346 34,142 884,453 191,341 456.6% 90.0% 95.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1224 Sudan <11 115,701 50,201 124,870 0 36.0% 85.0% 80.0% -1.6% -0.7%

1225 Sugar Land >100 15,771,658 3,576,469 11,525,146 3,170,615 83.5% 81.0% 83.5% 3.2% 0.0%

1226 Sulphur Springs >100 2,455,657 508,516 1,959,914 340,835 71.3% 90.0% 85.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1228 Sundown <100 369,787 48,290 531,354 102,717 189.7% 115.0% 115.0% 0.9% 0.0%

1229 Sunnyvale <100 812,488 140,644 1,058,234 432,732 248.5% 95.0% 100.0% 4.3% 0.0%

1230 Sunray <16 305,633 39,342 526,013 39,361 124.1% 100.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1227 Sunrise Beach Village <11 184,135 11,888 451,105 55,814 394.7% 85.0% 85.0% 7.7% 0.0%

1231 Sunset Valley <100 939,694 141,934 1,112,593 247,083 155.5% 95.0% 100.0% 2.5% 0.0%

1233 Surfside Beach <100 530,127 25,805 1,262,925 93,041 319.8% 95.0% 100.0% 6.9% 0.0%

1232 Sweeny <100 419,459 81,724 543,597 96,007 121.5% 95.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1234 Sweetwater >100 1,929,756 582,420 2,116,629 595,291 104.7% 103.0% 104.7% 0.8% 0.0%

1264 T.M.R.S. <100 3,228,392 737,210 1,703,250 215,819 37.1% 75.0% 75.0% 5.0% 0.0%

1236 Taft <100 1,033,577 56,085 2,522,127 177,782 292.7% 120.0% 115.0% 4.7% 0.0%

1238 Tahoka <100 253,522 59,784 417,670 49,088 109.7% 95.0% 100.0% 3.6% 0.0%

1241 Tatum <11 186,710 15,526 191,609 105,446 487.0% 85.0% 85.0% 3.5% 0.0%

1246 Taylor >100 3,290,540 516,691 3,401,644 767,841 133.5% 105.0% 110.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1248 Teague <100 836,559 11,371 1,748,782 37,647 290.4% 120.0% 115.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1252 Temple >100 12,800,253 2,313,288 12,639,537 2,045,598 91.9% 100.0% 95.0% 2.4% 0.0%

1254 Tenaha <11 214,194 0 442,966 0 135.6% 85.0% 85.0% 4.2% 0.0%

1256 Terrell >100 3,891,208 761,606 2,802,909 582,936 75.0% 90.0% 85.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1258 Terrell Hills <100 1,309,564 98,980 1,637,301 196,478 174.0% 110.0% 115.0% 0.4% 0.0%

21260 Texarkana >100 5,082,358 733,892 4,868,781 837,532 108.0% 109.0% 108.0% -1.2% -0.5%

11260 Texarkana Police Dept <100 2,408,746 345,074 1,355,468 592,169 133.2% 75.0% 80.0% -0.3% -0.1%

31260 Texarkana Water Utilities >100 3,448,544 613,070 2,693,660 499,448 80.3% 105.0% 100.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1262 Texas City >100 10,432,436 1,587,340 9,952,935 1,377,179 89.6% 110.0% 105.0% 0.1% 0.0%

11263 Texas Municipal League <100 966,942 265,045 529,892 463,819 134.9% 95.0% 100.0% -1.7% -0.8%

31263 Texas Municipal League IE >100 4,789,501 1,537,913 5,429,573 867,860 75.4% 110.0% 105.0% -2.4% -1.0%

21263 Texas Municipal League IR >100 5,231,579 4,608,275 2,601,866 1,447,349 37.5% 75.0% 75.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1265 Texhoma <6 8,741 6,185 16,248 0 62.0% 75.0% 75.0% -7.0% -1.0%

1267 The Colony >100 6,950,262 1,430,883 6,226,024 1,759,641 111.8% 94.0% 99.0% 1.4% 0.0%

1269 Thompsons <6 33,120 11,232 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1268 Thorndale <11 145,756 28,433 175,392 0 40.1% 85.0% 80.0% -0.2% -0.1%

1274 Three Rivers <100 619,832 212,636 819,052 62,017 63.5% 95.0% 90.0% 3.8% 0.0%

1276 Throckmorton <6 102,464 0 122,785 0 106.6% 75.0% 75.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1277 Tiki Island <11 192,294 29,704 219,667 47,026 143.6% 85.0% 85.0% 1.5% 0.0%

1278 Timpson <16 255,848 34,075 461,139 0 60.1% 85.0% 80.0% 1.1% 0.0%

1280 Tioga <11 114,219 33,472 228,048 0 66.6% 85.0% 80.0% 1.9% 0.0%

1283 Tolar <6 95,248 19,625 158,333 42,552 200.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1286 Tom Bean <11 211,060 9,167 422,348 31,112 293.0% 85.0% 85.0% 4.0% 0.0%

1284 Tomball >100 3,880,247 689,589 3,328,878 1,019,897 127.2% 105.0% 110.0% 2.5% 0.0%

1290 Trent <6 40,598 5,377 21,437 0 17.6% 75.0% 75.0% -0.4% -0.2%

1292 Trenton <6 169,185 0 425,865 0 150.6% 75.0% 75.0% -0.2% 0.0%

1293 Trinidad <11 151,104 9,679 339,048 0 74.8% 85.0% 80.0% -2.0% -0.9%

1294 Trinity <100 779,262 11,444 1,620,144 51,262 367.9% 110.0% 115.0% 1.7% 0.0%

1295 Trophy Club <100 2,275,116 406,553 2,753,399 1,008,743 205.8% 105.0% 110.0% 2.1% 0.0%

1296 Troup <100 594,827 11,967 920,367 183,902 1076.1% 110.0% 115.0% 4.9% 0.0%

1297 Troy <11 199,006 1,251 315,624 29,606 1630.8% 85.0% 85.0% 4.1% 0.0%

1298 Tulia <100 694,831 104,242 1,294,552 172,756 172.6% 95.0% 100.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1299 Turkey <6 39,972 0 20,920 0 84.1% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1301 Tye <16 165,022 51,844 259,328 68,085 139.9% 85.0% 90.0% -0.9% -0.4%

1304 Tyler >100 13,462,989 2,685,026 12,074,625 1,546,709 68.3% 115.0% 110.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1305 Universal City >100 3,269,687 317,114 3,440,641 511,544 142.6% 121.0% 125.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1306 University Park >100 3,359,002 1,233,409 1,382,014 722,313 52.8% 90.0% 85.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1308 Uvalde >100 3,306,340 439,759 4,040,222 1,007,198 193.4% 110.0% 115.0% 0.7% 0.0%

1314 Van <100 460,690 44,987 864,314 43,590 127.1% 95.0% 100.0% 5.9% 0.0%

1316 Van Alstyne <100 1,028,867 88,797 1,458,224 433,215 372.5% 110.0% 115.0% -0.8% -0.4%

1318 Van Horn <100 527,519 69,265 573,009 0 36.2% 108.0% 103.0% -1.9% -0.9%

1320 Vega <11 71,719 15,399 129,547 0 60.2% 85.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1324 Venus <16 391,160 0 586,101 0 116.6% 95.0% 100.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1326 Vernon >100 2,617,583 339,464 3,117,659 370,857 112.5% 125.0% 120.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1328 Victoria >100 13,383,389 2,212,981 16,521,068 3,341,117 141.8% 125.0% 125.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1329 Vidor <100 1,313,834 265,517 1,074,315 490,831 150.5% 95.0% 100.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1500 Village Fire Department <100 900,981 218,781 1,111,579 275,618 125.1% 95.0% 100.0% -0.6% -0.2%

1330 Waco >100 28,562,758 6,119,030 25,274,260 4,211,808 75.4% 115.0% 110.0% 0.6% 0.0%

1332 Waelder <100 431,468 26,595 785,098 0 60.7% 95.0% 90.0% 4.3% 0.0%

1334 Wake Village <100 467,992 48,166 664,414 72,993 148.4% 117.0% 115.0% 3.3% 0.0%

1336 Waller <100 596,494 53,048 845,536 41,415 99.3% 95.0% 99.3% 2.4% 0.0%

1337 Wallis <11 193,332 16,888 386,237 102,187 470.0% 90.0% 85.0% -0.1% 0.0%

1338 Walnut Springs <6 20,199 14,234 35,100 0 57.9% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1340 Waskom <100 422,594 63,257 719,534 109,186 171.8% 95.0% 100.0% -1.0% -0.5%

1341 Watauga >100 5,045,033 592,746 6,420,650 661,647 116.8% 125.0% 120.0% 1.0% 0.0%

1342 Waxahachie >100 5,064,918 965,010 3,324,690 1,088,598 97.1% 115.0% 110.0% 1.9% 0.0%

1344 Weatherford >100 8,134,199 1,722,347 7,785,412 1,751,946 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 1.6% 0.0%

1345 Webster >100 3,445,768 781,091 2,167,159 792,208 88.6% 77.0% 82.0% 2.1% 0.0%

1346 Weimar <100 363,520 156,432 269,267 152,600 89.7% 103.0% 98.0% -1.2% -0.5%

1350 Wellington <16 98,827 58,615 211,331 15,746 89.2% 85.0% 89.2% 0.1% 0.0%

1352 Wells <6 77,361 8,284 195,114 0 84.1% 75.0% 75.0% -6.6% -1.0%

1354 Weslaco >100 4,763,444 845,803 6,295,575 1,956,341 198.3% 99.0% 104.0% -2.9% -1.0%

1356 West <100 357,882 59,241 667,176 58,242 127.7% 110.0% 115.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1358 West Columbia <100 759,510 152,030 1,231,547 402,343 230.5% 110.0% 115.0% -0.2% 0.0%

1359 West Lake Hills <100 750,077 239,698 910,777 181,174 90.9% 95.0% 90.9% 0.4% 0.0%

1361 West Orange <100 473,756 113,310 455,377 100,809 91.4% 95.0% 91.4% 0.8% 0.0%

1365 West Tawakoni <16 327,442 45,986 664,961 83,635 188.9% 95.0% 100.0% -5.6% -1.0%

1364 West Univ. Place >100 3,276,863 718,931 3,355,220 1,065,813 133.0% 110.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1363 Westlake <100 912,466 127,365 773,502 328,283 200.1% 95.0% 100.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1362 Westover Hills <100 484,608 43,952 512,431 272,534 448.6% 95.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1366 Westworth Village <100 1,289,263 81,665 1,668,806 173,667 184.9% 110.0% 115.0% 8.7% 0.0%

1368 Wharton <100 2,089,130 300,878 1,897,730 683,074 181.6% 105.0% 110.0% 1.2% 0.0%

1370 Wheeler <6 94,595 1,793 106,645 0 37.6% 75.0% 75.0% 2.7% 0.0%

1372 White Deer <11 264,697 2,610 577,346 45,247 1228.2% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1377 White Oak <100 1,045,726 170,572 1,099,755 220,284 121.2% 110.0% 115.0% 1.4% 0.0%

1378 White Settlement >100 2,967,131 444,479 3,868,677 712,069 150.3% 125.0% 125.0% 0.3% 0.0%


Appendix I




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)



1374 Whiteface <6 53,270 23,267 0 0 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1375 Whitehouse <100 1,073,570 151,689 1,496,055 449,523 244.0% 110.0% 115.0% -1.1% -0.5%

1376 Whitesboro <100 916,055 163,862 1,121,763 150,318 102.0% 110.0% 105.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1380 Whitewright <100 509,952 32,056 588,126 0 38.4% 110.0% 105.0% 2.2% 0.0%

1382 Whitney <100 498,543 34,198 1,055,683 65,519 198.3% 110.0% 115.0% -2.8% -1.0%

1384 Wichita Falls >100 18,939,406 5,662,075 21,233,054 4,450,339 89.8% 115.0% 110.0% 0.8% 0.0%

1386 Willis <100 810,101 106,228 1,024,171 215,798 177.6% 115.0% 115.0% 3.0% 0.0%

1387 Willow Park <100 857,515 57,990 1,356,364 202,528 285.6% 85.0% 90.0% - -

1388 Wills Point <100 774,099 137,622 1,337,574 343,585 224.0% 95.0% 100.0% -1.9% -0.9%

1390 Wilmer <100 921,237 109,280 1,581,005 354,049 273.2% 120.0% 115.0% -1.0% -0.4%

1392 Wimberley <11 161,447 26,791 320,947 0 66.3% 85.0% 80.0% - -

1393 Windcrest <100 1,475,902 113,457 1,890,862 357,592 252.8% 115.0% 115.0% 2.7% 0.0%

1396 Wink <6 122,441 12,339 111,599 0 30.4% 85.0% 75.0% -0.6% -0.2%

1398 Winnsboro <100 886,156 100,936 1,441,234 265,344 229.5% 110.0% 115.0% 0.1% 0.0%

1399 Winona <11 225,453 32,033 522,920 116,094 318.9% 85.0% 85.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1400 Winters <16 372,123 3,703 709,525 0 63.6% 110.0% 100.0% -0.8% -0.4%

1403 Wolfforth <100 664,476 62,212 844,419 0 42.4% 103.0% 98.0% 3.0% 0.0%

1409 Woodcreek <6 62,809 6,431 117,214 39,007 466.6% 75.0% 75.0% 13.0% 0.0%

1404 Woodsboro <11 244,358 27,946 509,753 144,438 414.1% 85.0% 85.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1406 Woodville <100 601,102 190,807 649,693 26,252 45.2% 106.0% 101.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1407 Woodway <100 1,993,791 312,451 1,795,290 374,777 110.0% 115.0% 110.0% 1.0% 0.0%

1408 Wortham <11 261,701 25,736 548,265 34,498 159.2% 85.0% 85.0% -1.0% -0.4%

1410 Wylie >100 6,836,792 1,236,986 5,537,984 942,451 77.8% 105.0% 100.0% 4.6% 0.0%

1412 Yoakum <100 1,292,020 343,207 1,435,919 304,822 96.3% 105.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1414 Yorktown <16 237,407 50,012 602,288 46,493 146.5% 110.0% 100.0% 0.5% 0.0%

1415 Zavalla <6 118,910 22,160 265,819 75,420 301.4% 85.0% 75.0% -6.0% -1.0%


APPENDIX II A C T U A R I A L I M PA C T B Y CI T Y

Appendix II

Texas Municipal Retirement System Impact by City

City 2016 Full Experience Impact of City 2016 Full Experience Impact of

Number City Name Rate Study Changes Number City Name Rate Study Changes

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

4 Abernathy 3.17% 3.47% 0.30% 82 Balmorhea 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

6 Abilene 10.02% 11.14% 1.12% 83 Bandera 9.83% 10.14% 0.31%

7 Addison 9.33% 10.23% 0.90% 84 Bangs 13.43% 13.84% 0.41%

10 Alamo 7.27% 7.23% -0.04% 90 Bartlett 7.15% 7.59% 0.44%

12 Alamo Heights 17.03% 16.88% -0.15% 91 Bartonville 12.50% 13.87% 1.37%

14 Alba 2.45% 3.20% 0.75% 92 Bastrop 10.87% 11.44% 0.57%

16 Albany 4.41% 4.95% 0.54% 94 Bay City 9.63% 9.99% 0.36%

17 Aledo 7.03% 7.80% 0.77% 93 Bayou Vista 2.81% 3.37% 0.56%

18 Alice 9.33% 9.52% 0.19% 96 Baytown 17.40% 17.52% 0.12%

19 Allen 13.71% 13.69% -0.02% 98 Beaumont 19.17% 19.45% 0.28%

20 Alpine 0.37% 1.39% 1.02% 100 Bedford 8.02% 8.84% 0.82%

22 Alto 9.10% 9.99% 0.89% 101 Bee Cave 9.29% 10.05% 0.76%

23 Alton 12.39% 12.73% 0.34% 102 Beeville 0.25% 1.10% 0.85%

24 Alvarado 4.46% 5.25% 0.79% 106 Bellaire 21.20% 21.01% -0.19%

26 Alvin 16.89% 17.14% 0.25% 109 Bellmead 9.00% 9.59% 0.59%

28 Alvord 5.74% 6.62% 0.88% 110 Bells 0.02% 0.43% 0.41%

30 Amarillo 10.96% 12.01% 1.05% 112 Bellville 14.00% 14.38% 0.38%

32 Amherst 6.24% 6.90% 0.66% 114 Belton 6.84% 7.50% 0.66%

34 Anahuac 8.53% 9.34% 0.81% 118 Benbrook 17.35% 17.06% -0.29%

36 Andrews 15.66% 16.04% 0.38% 121 Berryville 1.66% 2.35% 0.69%

38 Angleton 11.91% 11.98% 0.07% 123 Bertram 1.42% 2.01% 0.59%

40 Anna 14.24% 14.19% -0.05% 124 Big Lake 18.33% 17.65% -0.68%

41 Annetta 2.29% 2.80% 0.51% 126 Big Sandy 2.68% 3.23% 0.55%

44 Anson 1.06% 1.55% 0.49% 128 Big Spring 16.11% 16.89% 0.78%

45 Anthony 2.76% 3.16% 0.40% 132 Bishop 3.75% 4.14% 0.39%

48 Aransas Pass 10.87% 11.10% 0.23% 134 Blanco 1.34% 1.89% 0.55%

50 Archer City 3.43% 3.99% 0.56% 140 Blooming Grove 7.72% 8.84% 1.12%

51 Argyle 14.99% 14.79% -0.20% 142 Blossom 3.10% 4.03% 0.93%

52 Arlington 14.93% 15.72% 0.79% 143 Blue Mound 4.53% 5.15% 0.62%

54 Arp 1.45% 2.14% 0.69% 144 Blue Ridge 0.29% 0.82% 0.53%

60 Aspermont 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 148 Boerne 17.79% 17.96% 0.17%

62 Athens 21.21% 21.01% -0.20% 150 Bogata 0.00% 0.21% 0.21%

64 Atlanta 4.10% 4.22% 0.12% 152 Bonham 4.28% 5.05% 0.77%

66 Aubrey 2.02% 2.97% 0.95% 154 Booker 5.24% 5.59% 0.35%

74 Avinger 1.35% 2.14% 0.79% 156 Borger 15.12% 15.43% 0.31%

75 Azle 11.88% 12.09% 0.21% 158 Bovina 0.00% 0.41% 0.41%

77 Baird 0.00% 0.46% 0.46% 160 Bowie 9.50% 9.89% 0.39%

78 Balch Springs 14.10% 14.14% 0.04% 162 Boyd 3.13% 3.85% 0.72%

79 Balcones Heights 18.44% 18.93% 0.49% 166 Brady 10.03% 10.86% 0.83%

80 Ballinger 3.48% 3.85% 0.37% 170 Brazoria 8.14% 8.89% 0.75%

Page 1 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

172 Breckenridge 7.29% 7.82% 0.53% 240 Celeste 9.03% 10.07% 1.04%

174 Bremond 15.12% 16.88% 1.76% 242 Celina 5.19% 6.09% 0.90%

176 Brenham 5.87% 6.91% 1.04% 244 Center 16.60% 16.77% 0.17%

177 Bridge City 14.89% 14.96% 0.07% 246 Centerville 16.44% 17.90% 1.46%

178 Bridgeport 13.38% 13.61% 0.23% 247 Chandler 4.72% 5.12% 0.40%

180 Bronte 9.00% 10.52% 1.52% 248 Charlotte 6.29% 6.49% 0.20%

182 Brookshire 3.83% 4.85% 1.02% 249 Chester 0.55% 3.42% 2.87%

184 Brownfield 7.68% 8.53% 0.85% 245 Chico 3.26% 3.84% 0.58%

10188 Brownsville 17.74% 17.49% -0.25% 250 Childress 14.71% 15.18% 0.47%

20188 Brownsville PUB 12.12% 12.07% -0.05% 253 Chireno 18.78% 19.40% 0.62%

10190 Brownwood 14.01% 14.27% 0.26% 254 Christine 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

30190 Brownwood Health Dept. 9.75% 10.85% 1.10% 255 Cibolo 12.04% 12.41% 0.37%

20190 Brownwood Public Library 3.05% 3.73% 0.68% 256 Cisco 2.26% 2.74% 0.48%

195 Bruceville-Eddy 4.47% 5.19% 0.72% 258 Clarendon 0.00% 0.18% 0.18%

192 Bryan 15.04% 15.38% 0.34% 259 Clarksville 3.63% 4.12% 0.49%

193 Bryson 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 260 Clarksville City 0.96% 2.80% 1.84%

194 Buda 13.66% 13.74% 0.08% 263 Clear Lake Shores 10.76% 10.96% 0.20%

196 Buffalo 4.06% 4.79% 0.73% 264 Cleburne 18.20% 18.52% 0.32%

198 Bullard 6.96% 7.44% 0.48% 266 Cleveland 9.86% 10.58% 0.72%

203 Bulverde 8.24% 8.61% 0.37% 268 Clifton 0.73% 1.24% 0.51%

199 Bunker Hill Village 9.78% 11.18% 1.40% 271 Clute 9.96% 11.08% 1.12%

200 Burkburnett 10.03% 10.81% 0.78% 272 Clyde 12.86% 12.92% 0.06%

202 Burleson 15.10% 15.26% 0.16% 274 Coahoma 4.59% 5.83% 1.24%

204 Burnet 12.30% 12.52% 0.22% 276 Cockrell Hill 7.96% 8.43% 0.47%

207 Cactus 2.24% 2.82% 0.58% 278 Coleman 17.73% 19.16% 1.43%

208 Caddo Mills 3.26% 3.74% 0.48% 280 College Station 12.78% 13.27% 0.49%

210 Caldwell 8.77% 9.23% 0.46% 281 Colleyville 7.58% 8.26% 0.68%

212 Calvert 0.69% 1.07% 0.38% 282 Collinsville 0.66% 1.13% 0.47%

214 Cameron 10.12% 10.40% 0.28% 283 Colmesneil 6.70% 7.85% 1.15%

220 Canadian 14.95% 14.80% -0.15% 284 Colorado City 8.18% 8.98% 0.80%

222 Canton 11.25% 12.01% 0.76% 286 Columbus 13.15% 13.51% 0.36%

224 Canyon 16.97% 17.33% 0.36% 288 Comanche 4.98% 5.07% 0.09%

227 Carmine 1.71% 1.12% -0.59% 290 Commerce 8.38% 8.86% 0.48%

228 Carrizo Springs 5.02% 5.18% 0.16% 294 Conroe 16.06% 16.32% 0.26%

230 Carrollton 11.48% 12.62% 1.14% 295 Converse 13.83% 14.06% 0.23%

232 Carthage 18.66% 18.74% 0.08% 298 Cooper 5.28% 6.12% 0.84%

231 Castle Hills 12.12% 12.16% 0.04% 299 Coppell 15.11% 15.14% 0.03%

234 Castroville 9.07% 9.59% 0.52% 297 Copper Canyon 12.49% 13.66% 1.17%

238 Cedar Hill 12.60% 13.25% 0.65% 300 Copperas Cove 12.31% 12.39% 0.08%

239 Cedar Park 9.35% 9.92% 0.57% 301 Corinth 15.02% 14.57% -0.45%

Page 2 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

302 Corpus Christi 9.58% 11.19% 1.61% 379 Double Oak 5.09% 5.75% 0.66%

304 Corrigan 0.86% 1.36% 0.50% 383 Dripping Springs 1.86% 2.48% 0.62%

306 Corsicana 14.00% 15.67% 1.67% 385 Driscoll 1.97% 2.76% 0.79%

308 Cotulla 5.84% 6.26% 0.42% 384 Dublin 13.90% 13.97% 0.07%

310 Crandall 10.95% 11.17% 0.22% 386 Dumas 6.22% 6.30% 0.08%

312 Crane 10.30% 11.50% 1.20% 388 Duncanville 3.41% 5.16% 1.75%

314 Crawford 0.20% 0.64% 0.44% 394 Eagle Lake 8.07% 8.51% 0.44%

316 Crockett 8.11% 8.73% 0.62% 396 Eagle Pass 9.08% 9.05% -0.03%

318 Crosbyton 4.31% 5.50% 1.19% 397 Early 2.34% 2.77% 0.43%

320 Cross Plains 7.57% 8.08% 0.51% 399 Earth 4.03% 4.63% 0.60%

321 Cross Roads 7.19% 8.03% 0.84% 401 East Mountain 13.29% 13.79% 0.50%

323 Crowley 10.26% 10.33% 0.07% 395 East Tawakoni 5.40% 6.33% 0.93%

324 Crystal City 0.29% 1.54% 1.25% 398 Eastland 8.79% 9.23% 0.44%

326 Cuero 9.99% 10.06% 0.07% 402 Ector 1.65% 2.13% 0.48%

328 Cumby 2.36% 2.74% 0.38% 406 Eden 5.22% 5.62% 0.40%

332 Daingerfield 6.62% 7.07% 0.45% 408 Edgewood 3.52% 4.36% 0.84%

334 Daisetta 0.95% 1.35% 0.40% 410 Edinburg 14.56% 14.81% 0.25%

336 Dalhart 3.65% 4.81% 1.16% 412 Edna 11.26% 11.31% 0.05%

339 Dalworthington Gardens 21.95% 21.44% -0.51% 414 El Campo 11.29% 11.11% -0.18%

340 Danbury 5.72% 6.45% 0.73% 416 Eldorado 6.57% 7.08% 0.51%

341 Darrouzett 1.38% 2.70% 1.32% 418 Electra 1.87% 2.38% 0.51%

344 Dayton 6.25% 7.39% 1.14% 420 Elgin 10.96% 11.39% 0.43%

352 De Leon 1.25% 1.75% 0.50% 422 Elkhart 5.96% 6.41% 0.45%

10366 DeSoto 10.38% 11.29% 0.91% 427 Elmendorf 0.87% 1.27% 0.40%

346 Decatur 15.02% 15.24% 0.22% 432 Emory 4.53% 5.11% 0.58%

348 Deer Park 13.82% 14.21% 0.39% 436 Ennis 17.93% 17.79% -0.14%

350 Dekalb 1.28% 1.95% 0.67% 439 Euless 17.49% 17.42% -0.07%

354 Del Rio 4.11% 4.54% 0.43% 440 Eustace 6.02% 7.25% 1.23%

353 Dell City 6.61% 7.21% 0.60% 441 Everman 8.45% 8.95% 0.50%

356 Denison 11.80% 12.94% 1.14% 443 Fair Oaks Ranch 11.24% 11.54% 0.30%

358 Denton 17.23% 17.43% 0.20% 442 Fairfield 2.81% 3.75% 0.94%

360 Denver City 11.59% 12.38% 0.79% 445 Fairview 10.27% 10.81% 0.54%

362 Deport 6.90% 8.21% 1.31% 20444 Falfurrias 1.68% 2.13% 0.45%

370 Devine 8.21% 8.12% -0.09% 446 Falls City 8.67% 9.13% 0.46%

371 Diboll 13.54% 14.16% 0.62% 448 Farmers Branch 17.62% 18.20% 0.58%

372 Dickens 0.74% 1.31% 0.57% 450 Farmersville 8.42% 8.69% 0.27%

373 Dickinson 8.45% 8.98% 0.53% 451 Farwell 13.51% 14.00% 0.49%

374 Dilley 7.46% 7.92% 0.46% 452 Fate 9.66% 10.04% 0.38%

376 Dimmitt 4.65% 5.92% 1.27% 454 Fayetteville 0.04% 0.71% 0.67%

382 Donna 5.08% 5.68% 0.60% 456 Ferris 6.75% 6.89% 0.14%

Page 3 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

458 Flatonia 17.72% 18.42% 0.70% 532 Graford 2.65% 3.25% 0.60%

460 Florence 3.23% 3.96% 0.73% 10534 Graham 11.91% 12.54% 0.63%

20462 Floresville 9.98% 10.64% 0.66% 536 Granbury 15.20% 15.54% 0.34%

463 Flower Mound 9.18% 9.74% 0.56% 540 Grand Prairie 15.66% 15.99% 0.33%

464 Floydada 9.12% 9.29% 0.17% 542 Grand Saline 5.57% 6.02% 0.45%

468 Forest Hill 13.40% 13.37% -0.03% 544 Grandview 5.08% 5.96% 0.88%

470 Forney 14.10% 13.91% -0.19% 546 Granger 0.00% 0.34% 0.34%

472 Fort Stockton 10.25% 10.36% 0.11% 547 Granite Shoals 4.45% 5.00% 0.55%

476 Franklin 2.79% 3.39% 0.60% 548 Grapeland 4.12% 4.35% 0.23%

478 Frankston 1.88% 2.35% 0.47% 550 Grapevine 19.06% 19.02% -0.04%

480 Fredericksburg 9.25% 10.04% 0.79% 552 Greenville 10.30% 11.23% 0.93%

482 Freeport 13.77% 14.12% 0.35% 551 Gregory 3.73% 4.11% 0.38%

481 Freer 6.04% 6.20% 0.16% 553 Grey Forest 15.18% 16.08% 0.90%

483 Friendswood 15.44% 15.73% 0.29% 556 Groesbeck 2.33% 2.72% 0.39%

484 Friona 11.34% 12.13% 0.79% 558 Groom 2.26% 2.85% 0.59%

486 Frisco 14.00% 14.05% 0.05% 559 Groves 8.88% 9.53% 0.65%

487 Fritch 1.94% 2.68% 0.74% 560 Groveton 1.48% 1.91% 0.43%

488 Frost 3.18% 3.98% 0.80% 562 Gruver 6.38% 8.45% 2.07%

491 Fulshear 4.93% 5.49% 0.56% 563 Gun Barrel City 5.52% 6.33% 0.81%

493 Fulton 17.48% 18.45% 0.97% 564 Gunter 3.34% 4.00% 0.66%

492 Gainesville 9.31% 9.52% 0.21% 568 Hale Center 1.74% 2.14% 0.40%

494 Galena Park 13.90% 14.88% 0.98% 570 Hallettsville 12.05% 12.43% 0.38%

498 Ganado 11.88% 13.06% 1.18% 572 Hallsville 2.94% 3.30% 0.36%

499 Garden Ridge 7.48% 7.92% 0.44% 574 Haltom City 18.72% 18.75% 0.03%

500 Garland 10.30% 11.19% 0.89% 576 Hamilton 20.74% 20.78% 0.04%

502 Garrison 15.03% 16.70% 1.67% 578 Hamlin 10.89% 12.37% 1.48%

503 Gary 7.28% 7.62% 0.34% 580 Happy 12.38% 13.83% 1.45%

504 Gatesville 15.90% 16.13% 0.23% 581 Harker Heights 14.63% 14.61% -0.02%

505 George West 5.02% 5.61% 0.59% 10582 Harlingen 7.01% 10.02% 3.01%

506 Georgetown 11.47% 12.27% 0.80% 20582 Harlingen Waterworks Sys 0.59% 1.65% 1.06%

510 Giddings 18.46% 19.15% 0.69% 583 Hart 2.68% 3.57% 0.89%

512 Gilmer 12.93% 13.22% 0.29% 586 Haskell 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

514 Gladewater 3.21% 3.47% 0.26% 587 Haslet 8.17% 8.75% 0.58%

516 Glen Rose 15.28% 15.51% 0.23% 588 Hawkins 13.33% 14.68% 1.35%

517 Glenn Heights 3.20% 3.71% 0.51% 585 Hays 5.82% 7.44% 1.62%

518 Godley 1.99% 2.55% 0.56% 590 Hearne 15.00% 15.54% 0.54%

519 Goldsmith 2.73% 3.58% 0.85% 591 Heath 10.70% 11.16% 0.46%

520 Goldthwaite 25.83% 26.35% 0.52% 592 Hedley 3.00% 3.93% 0.93%

522 Goliad 1.06% 2.42% 1.36% 595 Hedwig Village 6.12% 7.03% 0.91%

524 Gonzales 10.39% 10.44% 0.05% 593 Helotes 6.09% 6.93% 0.84%

Page 4 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

594 Hemphill 3.51% 4.12% 0.61% 645 Iraan 14.43% 16.16% 1.73%

596 Hempstead 8.64% 8.75% 0.11% 648 Irving 13.33% 14.33% 1.00%

598 Henderson 15.34% 15.75% 0.41% 650 Italy 2.25% 2.63% 0.38%

600 Henrietta 14.10% 14.73% 0.63% 652 Itasca 10.22% 11.12% 0.90%

602 Hereford 10.43% 10.63% 0.20% 654 Jacinto City 8.76% 9.15% 0.39%

605 Hewitt 15.31% 15.54% 0.23% 656 Jacksboro 13.76% 14.43% 0.67%

609 Hickory Creek 10.81% 11.28% 0.47% 658 Jacksonville 10.79% 11.55% 0.76%

606 Hico 4.55% 5.55% 1.00% 660 Jasper 8.94% 10.22% 1.28%

607 Hidalgo 12.64% 12.76% 0.12% 664 Jefferson 3.31% 3.91% 0.60%

608 Higgins 3.64% 3.94% 0.30% 665 Jersey Village 14.88% 14.99% 0.11%

610 Highland Park 3.14% 4.83% 1.69% 666 Jewett 8.33% 8.62% 0.29%

611 Highland Village 13.20% 13.32% 0.12% 668 Joaquin 3.95% 4.53% 0.58%

613 Hill Country Village 3.14% 4.19% 1.05% 670 Johnson City 9.40% 9.64% 0.24%

612 Hillsboro 10.75% 10.98% 0.23% 673 Jones Creek 5.74% 6.49% 0.75%

619 Hilshire Village 12.72% 13.26% 0.54% 675 Jonestown 5.14% 5.67% 0.53%

614 Hitchcock 3.82% 4.62% 0.80% 677 Josephine 6.33% 7.20% 0.87%

615 Holland 7.64% 8.73% 1.09% 671 Joshua 5.06% 6.00% 0.94%

616 Holliday 1.93% 2.65% 0.72% 672 Jourdanton 6.16% 6.38% 0.22%

617 Hollywood Park 8.95% 8.86% -0.09% 674 Junction 14.42% 14.96% 0.54%

618 Hondo 9.00% 9.09% 0.09% 676 Justin 2.29% 2.53% 0.24%

620 Honey Grove 7.29% 7.50% 0.21% 678 Karnes City 5.00% 5.14% 0.14%

622 Hooks 0.87% 1.58% 0.71% 680 Katy 14.45% 14.29% -0.16%

626 Howe 4.50% 5.38% 0.88% 682 Kaufman 14.02% 14.41% 0.39%

627 Hubbard 0.40% 0.79% 0.39% 683 Keene 14.26% 14.87% 0.61%

628 Hudson 3.49% 4.29% 0.80% 681 Keller 14.93% 15.11% 0.18%

629 Hudson Oaks 12.89% 12.79% -0.10% 685 Kemah 5.23% 6.26% 1.03%

630 Hughes Springs 15.36% 15.93% 0.57% 684 Kemp 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

632 Humble 13.58% 13.48% -0.10% 686 Kenedy 4.28% 4.62% 0.34%

633 Hunters Creek Village 14.00% 15.37% 1.37% 688 Kennedale 14.22% 14.35% 0.13%

634 Huntington 13.77% 14.11% 0.34% 692 Kermit 15.36% 16.06% 0.70%

636 Huntsville 17.07% 18.32% 1.25% 10694 Kerrville 8.42% 9.12% 0.70%

637 Hurst 9.63% 10.54% 0.91% 20694 Kerrville PUB 11.80% 12.47% 0.67%

638 Hutchins 6.94% 7.07% 0.13% 10696 Kilgore 14.63% 14.77% 0.14%

640 Hutto 13.14% 12.98% -0.16% 698 Killeen 8.13% 9.38% 1.25%

641 Huxley 0.00% 0.45% 0.45% 700 Kingsville 9.37% 9.57% 0.20%

642 Idalou 4.06% 4.76% 0.70% 701 Kirby 13.11% 13.54% 0.43%

643 Ingleside 10.35% 10.84% 0.49% 702 Kirbyville 5.35% 5.86% 0.51%

646 Ingram 5.39% 5.98% 0.59% 704 Knox City 1.06% 1.79% 0.73%

647 Iowa Colony 33.93% 34.70% 0.77% 708 Kountze 0.94% 1.31% 0.37%

644 Iowa Park 13.63% 14.31% 0.68% 709 Kress 10.54% 12.56% 2.02%

Page 5 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

699 Krugerville 7.63% 8.31% 0.68% 751 Little Elm 12.92% 12.99% 0.07%

707 Krum 3.69% 4.33% 0.64% 752 Littlefield 9.10% 9.49% 0.39%

710 Kyle 11.52% 11.96% 0.44% 753 Live Oak 17.62% 17.47% -0.15%

725 La Coste 0.92% 1.40% 0.48% 757 Liverpool 1.92% 2.30% 0.38%

714 La Feria 9.77% 9.88% 0.11% 754 Livingston 16.05% 16.61% 0.56%

716 La Grange 15.44% 16.31% 0.87% 756 Llano 9.67% 10.67% 1.00%

723 La Grulla 3.30% 4.01% 0.71% 758 Lockhart 11.86% 12.45% 0.59%

732 La Joya 5.48% 5.85% 0.37% 760 Lockney 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

721 La Marque 9.11% 9.47% 0.36% 765 Lone Star 2.83% 3.30% 0.47%

728 La Porte 15.64% 15.74% 0.10% 766 Longview 9.86% 10.96% 1.10%

731 La Vernia 2.44% 2.79% 0.35% 768 Loraine 2.05% 2.95% 0.90%

711 Lacy-Lakeview 13.58% 14.02% 0.44% 769 Lorena 6.67% 7.04% 0.37%

712 Ladonia 0.11% 1.10% 0.99% 770 Lorenzo 2.18% 2.76% 0.58%

713 Lago Vista 6.48% 7.27% 0.79% 771 Los Fresnos 0.83% 1.44% 0.61%

705 Laguna Vista 2.50% 3.06% 0.56% 773 Lott 0.87% 1.26% 0.39%

717 Lake Dallas 12.56% 13.34% 0.78% 774 Lovelady 6.09% 6.76% 0.67%

718 Lake Jackson 11.73% 11.84% 0.11% 778 Lubbock 17.96% 17.92% -0.04%

719 Lake Worth 12.52% 12.75% 0.23% 779 Lucas 13.32% 13.67% 0.35%

727 Lakeport 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 782 Lufkin 15.72% 16.53% 0.81%

715 Lakeside 7.13% 7.73% 0.60% 784 Luling 8.51% 9.23% 0.72%

729 Lakeside City 1.22% 1.73% 0.51% 785 Lumberton 16.69% 16.53% -0.16%

720 Lakeway 12.95% 13.48% 0.53% 786 Lyford 4.36% 4.93% 0.57%

722 Lamesa 3.60% 5.10% 1.50% 787 Lytle 9.01% 9.14% 0.13%

724 Lampasas 14.16% 14.43% 0.27% 790 Madisonville 9.03% 9.50% 0.47%

726 Lancaster 13.30% 13.92% 0.62% 791 Magnolia 1.38% 1.88% 0.50%

730 Laredo 21.29% 21.29% 0.00% 792 Malakoff 5.92% 6.94% 1.02%

733 Lavon 4.71% 5.28% 0.57% 796 Manor 3.36% 4.00% 0.64%

736 League City 14.86% 14.77% -0.09% 798 Mansfield 14.14% 14.21% 0.07%

737 Leander 12.18% 12.46% 0.28% 799 Manvel 5.65% 6.40% 0.75%

735 Lefors 3.85% 4.30% 0.45% 800 Marble Falls 4.35% 5.52% 1.17%

739 Leon Valley 13.98% 13.99% 0.01% 802 Marfa 0.91% 1.72% 0.81%

738 Leonard 0.61% 1.06% 0.45% 804 Marion 5.04% 5.61% 0.57%

740 Levelland 11.94% 12.17% 0.23% 806 Marlin 9.29% 10.12% 0.83%

742 Lewisville 16.27% 16.45% 0.18% 810 Marshall 16.19% 17.05% 0.86%

744 Lexington 8.79% 9.33% 0.54% 812 Mart 1.27% 1.66% 0.39%

746 Liberty 17.74% 18.91% 1.17% 813 Martindale 8.85% 9.63% 0.78%

745 Liberty Hill 2.75% 3.15% 0.40% 814 Mason 6.04% 6.50% 0.46%

748 Lindale 14.34% 14.40% 0.06% 816 Matador 6.12% 6.91% 0.79%

750 Linden 1.34% 1.89% 0.55% 818 Mathis 3.04% 4.08% 1.04%

755 Lipan 1.69% 2.24% 0.55% 820 Maud 3.28% 3.69% 0.41%

Page 6 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

822 Maypearl 1.64% 2.27% 0.63% 898 Muleshoe 15.89% 16.27% 0.38%

824 McAllen 6.28% 7.42% 1.14% 901 Munday 3.33% 3.78% 0.45%

826 McCamey 1.61% 2.27% 0.66% 903 Murphy 13.76% 13.70% -0.06%

828 McGregor 10.55% 11.15% 0.60% 10904 Nacogdoches 13.93% 14.80% 0.87%

830 McKinney 15.18% 14.91% -0.27% 906 Naples 1.93% 2.60% 0.67%

832 McLean 1.58% 2.45% 0.87% 907 Nash 4.58% 5.72% 1.14%

833 McLendon-Chisholm 8.41% 8.79% 0.38% 905 Nassau Bay 15.25% 15.42% 0.17%

831 Meadowlakes 1.30% 1.84% 0.54% 909 Natalia 2.32% 2.67% 0.35%

835 Meadows Place 5.92% 7.26% 1.34% 908 Navasota 7.49% 8.21% 0.72%

837 Melissa 7.07% 7.90% 0.83% 910 Nederland 5.42% 6.52% 1.10%

1501 Memorial Villages PD 9.30% 10.40% 1.10% 912 Needville 3.26% 3.98% 0.72%

840 Memphis 4.93% 5.40% 0.47% 914 New Boston 2.34% 2.57% 0.23%

842 Menard 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10916 New Braunfels 17.23% 16.83% -0.40%

844 Mercedes 19.09% 19.07% -0.02% 20916 New Braunfels Utilities 12.45% 12.74% 0.29%

846 Meridian 2.26% 3.09% 0.83% 915 New Deal 0.00% 0.27% 0.27%

848 Merkel 13.33% 13.65% 0.32% 923 New Fairview 4.66% 5.88% 1.22%

852 Mertzon 8.48% 9.17% 0.69% 918 New London 5.25% 5.43% 0.18%

854 Mesquite 10.14% 11.80% 1.66% 919 New Summerfield 1.61% 2.08% 0.47%

856 Mexia 11.80% 12.43% 0.63% 917 New Waverly 5.93% 7.13% 1.20%

860 Midland 15.02% 15.51% 0.49% 913 Newark 3.33% 3.77% 0.44%

862 Midlothian 14.05% 14.19% 0.14% 920 Newton 20.58% 20.78% 0.20%

863 Milano 4.09% 4.48% 0.39% 922 Nixon 1.00% 1.43% 0.43%

864 Miles 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 924 Nocona 9.26% 9.49% 0.23%

865 Milford 8.28% 9.43% 1.15% 925 Nolanville 1.89% 2.23% 0.34%

868 Mineola 3.53% 4.13% 0.60% 928 Normangee 3.45% 4.07% 0.62%

870 Mineral Wells 8.85% 9.39% 0.54% 931 North Richland Hills 16.26% 16.23% -0.03%

874 Mission 7.86% 8.26% 0.40% 930 Northlake 9.00% 9.72% 0.72%

875 Missouri City 5.40% 6.84% 1.44% 935 O'Donnell 6.83% 8.02% 1.19%

876 Monahans 8.93% 9.04% 0.11% 936 Oak Point 6.70% 7.66% 0.96%

887 Mont Belvieu 15.93% 16.56% 0.63% 937 Oak Ridge North 11.71% 11.92% 0.21%

877 Montgomery 4.13% 4.99% 0.86% 942 Odem 6.84% 7.62% 0.78%

878 Moody 2.69% 3.26% 0.57% 944 Odessa 13.39% 14.04% 0.65%

883 Morgan's Point 9.65% 10.70% 1.05% 945 Oglesby 0.01% 0.57% 0.56%

882 Morgan's Point Resort 11.68% 12.30% 0.62% 949 Old River-Winfree 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

884 Morton 4.54% 5.01% 0.47% 950 Olmos Park 1.21% 2.30% 1.09%

886 Moulton 6.68% 6.78% 0.10% 951 Olney 6.70% 7.59% 0.89%

890 Mount Enterprise 1.91% 2.81% 0.90% 953 Omaha 4.77% 5.37% 0.60%

892 Mt. Pleasant 15.35% 15.44% 0.09% 954 Onalaska 1.61% 2.20% 0.59%

894 Mt. Vernon 10.19% 10.85% 0.66% 958 Orange 17.87% 17.69% -0.18%

896 Muenster 0.49% 1.39% 0.90% 960 Orange Grove 1.95% 2.86% 0.91%

Page 7 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

959 Ore City 0.76% 1.28% 0.52% 1024 Post 10.08% 10.78% 0.70%

962 Overton 0.92% 1.77% 0.85% 1026 Poteet 0.72% 1.23% 0.51%

961 Ovilla 8.73% 9.42% 0.69% 1028 Poth 3.49% 4.14% 0.65%

963 Oyster Creek 9.35% 10.44% 1.09% 1030 Pottsboro 5.71% 6.52% 0.81%

964 Paducah 2.48% 3.56% 1.08% 1032 Premont 0.02% 0.59% 0.57%

966 Palacios 16.82% 17.56% 0.74% 1029 Presidio 0.44% 0.86% 0.42%

968 Palestine 13.93% 14.09% 0.16% 1033 Primera 0.33% 0.75% 0.42%

970 Palmer 6.78% 7.05% 0.27% 1034 Princeton 10.61% 10.79% 0.18%

969 Palmhurst 0.84% 1.19% 0.35% 1036 Prosper 13.38% 13.21% -0.17%

971 Palmview 2.02% 2.42% 0.40% 1042 Quanah 9.94% 10.48% 0.54%

972 Pampa 21.27% 21.71% 0.44% 1045 Queen City 1.45% 1.87% 0.42%

974 Panhandle 13.63% 13.71% 0.08% 1044 Quinlan 10.48% 10.99% 0.51%

973 Panorama Village 5.66% 6.65% 0.99% 1047 Quintana 1.33% 1.77% 0.44%

975 Pantego 16.57% 17.52% 0.95% 1046 Quitaque 4.40% 5.29% 0.89%

976 Paris 5.73% 7.04% 1.31% 1048 Quitman 8.10% 8.55% 0.45%

977 Parker 11.20% 12.23% 1.03% 1050 Ralls 7.22% 7.98% 0.76%

978 Pasadena 12.70% 13.80% 1.10% 1051 Rancho Viejo 6.23% 7.19% 0.96%

983 Pearland 13.37% 13.28% -0.09% 1052 Ranger 8.78% 8.95% 0.17%

984 Pearsall 3.29% 3.46% 0.17% 1054 Rankin 1.07% 1.62% 0.55%

988 Pecos City 5.18% 5.77% 0.59% 1055 Ransom Canyon 14.40% 15.02% 0.62%

994 Perryton 14.11% 14.90% 0.79% 1058 Raymondville 0.48% 2.18% 1.70%

1000 Pflugerville 13.64% 13.61% -0.03% 1061 Red Oak 5.31% 6.11% 0.80%

1002 Pharr 6.52% 7.80% 1.28% 1062 Redwater 3.39% 3.99% 0.60%

1004 Pilot Point 9.03% 9.27% 0.24% 1064 Refugio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1005 Pinehurst 16.14% 17.06% 0.92% 1065 Reklaw 16.34% 18.02% 1.68%

1003 Pineland 10.26% 10.57% 0.31% 1066 Reno (Lamar County) 3.18% 3.64% 0.46%

1001 Piney Point Village 6.69% 7.44% 0.75% 1069 Reno (Parker County) 2.52% 2.90% 0.38%

1006 Pittsburg 15.35% 16.63% 1.28% 1067 Rhome 6.13% 7.13% 1.00%

1007 Plains 5.74% 6.62% 0.88% 1068 Rice 0.32% 0.72% 0.40%

1008 Plainview 13.78% 14.81% 1.03% 1070 Richardson 13.32% 14.56% 1.24%

1010 Plano 17.44% 17.40% -0.04% 1073 Richland Hills 16.16% 16.41% 0.25%

1012 Pleasanton 16.28% 16.61% 0.33% 1074 Richland Springs 0.00% 0.28% 0.28%

1013 Point 5.84% 6.55% 0.71% 1076 Richmond 13.21% 13.48% 0.27%

1017 Ponder 5.29% 6.14% 0.85% 1077 Richwood 11.00% 11.34% 0.34%

1014 Port Aransas 12.22% 12.59% 0.37% 1072 Riesel 5.57% 6.18% 0.61%

11016 Port Arthur 13.61% 13.79% 0.18% 1075 Rio Grande City 7.26% 7.28% 0.02%

1018 Port Isabel 3.65% 4.25% 0.60% 1079 Rio Vista 4.97% 5.65% 0.68%

1020 Port Lavaca 5.68% 6.23% 0.55% 1080 Rising Star 0.00% 0.23% 0.23%

1022 Port Neches 11.56% 12.24% 0.68% 1082 River Oaks 15.50% 15.77% 0.27%

1019 Portland 14.30% 14.16% -0.14% 1084 Roanoke 16.52% 16.18% -0.34%

Page 8 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1088 Robert Lee 5.72% 6.82% 1.10% 1158 Savoy 0.83% 1.67% 0.84%

1089 Robinson 13.17% 13.87% 0.70% 1159 Schertz 15.94% 15.75% -0.19%

21090 Robstown 6.10% 6.42% 0.32% 1160 Schulenburg 21.32% 21.68% 0.36%

11090 Robstown Utility Systems 16.53% 16.58% 0.05% 1161 Seabrook 13.72% 14.69% 0.97%

1092 Roby 2.08% 3.93% 1.85% 1162 Seadrift 3.94% 4.60% 0.66%

1096 Rockdale 9.65% 9.85% 0.20% 1164 Seagoville 9.53% 10.44% 0.91%

1098 Rockport 15.20% 15.60% 0.40% 1166 Seagraves 10.09% 10.58% 0.49%

1100 Rocksprings 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 1167 Sealy 15.03% 15.45% 0.42%

1102 Rockwall 16.22% 16.01% -0.21% 1168 Seguin 15.25% 15.98% 0.73%

1104 Rogers 4.35% 5.12% 0.77% 1169 Selma 15.04% 14.92% -0.12%

1105 Rollingwood 8.38% 8.96% 0.58% 1170 Seminole 13.53% 14.36% 0.83%

1106 Roma 10.51% 10.82% 0.31% 1171 Seven Points 5.76% 6.18% 0.42%

1109 Roscoe 1.23% 1.90% 0.67% 1172 Seymour 7.36% 7.78% 0.42%

1112 Rosebud 1.34% 1.66% 0.32% 1165 Shady Shores 1.10% 1.45% 0.35%

1114 Rosenberg 13.48% 13.28% -0.20% 1177 Shallowater 2.84% 3.37% 0.53%

1116 Rotan 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1174 Shamrock 8.06% 8.15% 0.09%

1118 Round Rock 15.40% 15.37% -0.03% 1173 Shavano Park 13.39% 13.62% 0.23%

1119 Rowlett 12.42% 12.81% 0.39% 1175 Shenandoah 17.44% 17.43% -0.01%

1120 Royse City 12.52% 12.90% 0.38% 1181 Shepherd 2.32% 3.24% 0.92%

1122 Rule 8.00% 9.60% 1.60% 1176 Sherman 13.29% 14.07% 0.78%

1123 Runaway Bay 2.20% 2.69% 0.49% 1178 Shiner 7.22% 7.30% 0.08%

1124 Runge 14.96% 15.27% 0.31% 1179 Shoreacres 5.20% 5.60% 0.40%

1126 Rusk 5.69% 6.03% 0.34% 1180 Silsbee 17.38% 17.75% 0.37%

1128 Sabinal 2.68% 3.21% 0.53% 1182 Silverton 1.21% 2.25% 1.04%

1129 Sachse 13.42% 13.61% 0.19% 1184 Sinton 12.40% 13.15% 0.75%

1131 Saginaw 17.85% 17.44% -0.41% 1185 Skellytown 0.76% 1.26% 0.50%

1130 Saint Jo 5.55% 5.80% 0.25% 1186 Slaton 6.01% 7.23% 1.22%

1133 Salado 6.98% 7.29% 0.31% 1188 Smithville 5.95% 6.30% 0.35%

1132 San Angelo 17.09% 17.78% 0.69% 1189 Smyer 8.00% 9.84% 1.84%

21136 San Antonio 10.36% 11.29% 0.93% 1190 Snyder 16.11% 16.69% 0.58%

11136 San Antonio Water System 3.69% 3.73% 0.04% 1191 Somerset 2.90% 3.58% 0.68%

1138 San Augustine 10.19% 10.87% 0.68% 1192 Somerville 5.40% 5.66% 0.26%

1140 San Benito 4.90% 5.70% 0.80% 1194 Sonora 8.86% 9.02% 0.16%

1144 San Felipe 3.57% 4.49% 0.92% 1196 Sour Lake 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1148 San Juan 1.76% 2.45% 0.69% 1198 South Houston 10.94% 11.08% 0.14%

1150 San Marcos 17.49% 17.69% 0.20% 1199 South Padre Island 12.46% 12.57% 0.11%

1152 San Saba 8.05% 8.34% 0.29% 1197 Southlake 11.50% 11.99% 0.49%

1146 Sanger 7.13% 7.81% 0.68% 1202 Southside Place 10.62% 11.02% 0.40%

1153 Sansom Park 6.18% 6.49% 0.31% 1204 Spearman 12.60% 13.36% 0.76%

1155 Santa Fe 12.31% 12.14% -0.17% 1205 Spring Valley Village 6.07% 7.27% 1.20%

Page 9 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1203 Springtown 9.97% 10.29% 0.32% 1267 The Colony 12.06% 12.60% 0.54%

1206 Spur 5.13% 5.80% 0.67% 1269 Thompsons 2.84% 3.66% 0.82%

1207 Stafford 14.51% 14.82% 0.31% 1268 Thorndale 5.70% 6.41% 0.71%

1208 Stamford 5.01% 5.38% 0.37% 1272 Thrall 5.53% 5.94% 0.41%

1210 Stanton 7.57% 7.86% 0.29% 1274 Three Rivers 5.14% 5.38% 0.24%

1211 Star Harbor 9.27% 9.53% 0.26% 1276 Throckmorton 6.54% 6.41% -0.13%

1212 Stephenville 14.19% 14.41% 0.22% 1277 Tiki Island 2.62% 3.31% 0.69%

1213 Sterling City 0.39% 1.16% 0.77% 1278 Timpson 2.22% 2.72% 0.50%

1214 Stinnett 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1280 Tioga 0.50% 1.01% 0.51%

1216 Stockdale 4.09% 4.44% 0.35% 1283 Tolar 7.37% 8.45% 1.08%

1218 Stratford 7.30% 7.48% 0.18% 1286 Tom Bean 2.00% 2.50% 0.50%

1224 Sudan 2.91% 3.79% 0.88% 1284 Tomball 13.30% 13.33% 0.03%

1225 Sugar Land 14.71% 14.55% -0.16% 1290 Trent 6.87% 8.29% 1.42%

1226 Sulphur Springs 5.37% 6.78% 1.41% 1292 Trenton 3.74% 4.46% 0.72%

1228 Sundown 10.01% 11.20% 1.19% 1293 Trinidad 3.72% 4.72% 1.00%

1229 Sunnyvale 12.19% 12.22% 0.03% 1294 Trinity 6.64% 6.97% 0.33%

1230 Sunray 18.93% 19.08% 0.15% 1295 Trophy Club 12.63% 13.25% 0.62%

1227 Sunrise Beach Village 0.98% 1.36% 0.38% 1296 Troup 5.66% 5.80% 0.14%

1231 Sunset Valley 11.20% 11.57% 0.37% 1297 Troy 9.18% 10.07% 0.89%

1233 Surfside Beach 0.66% 1.03% 0.37% 1298 Tulia 11.62% 11.68% 0.06%

1232 Sweeny 17.26% 17.43% 0.17% 1299 Turkey 5.19% 5.99% 0.80%

1234 Sweetwater 18.15% 18.28% 0.13% 1301 Tye 6.56% 7.41% 0.85%

1264 TMRS 16.75% 16.99% 0.24% 1304 Tyler 20.63% 20.86% 0.23%

1236 Taft 11.95% 13.10% 1.15% 1305 Universal City 18.45% 18.58% 0.13%

1238 Tahoka 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 1306 University Park 5.55% 7.14% 1.59%

1241 Tatum 2.09% 2.51% 0.42% 1308 Uvalde 5.96% 6.04% 0.08%

1246 Taylor 12.20% 12.15% -0.05% 1313 Valley View 2.34% 2.69% 0.35%

1248 Teague 12.06% 12.79% 0.73% 1314 Van 7.57% 8.13% 0.56%

1252 Temple 15.85% 16.12% 0.27% 1316 Van Alstyne 10.50% 10.35% -0.15%

1254 Tenaha 0.51% 0.93% 0.42% 1318 Van Horn 7.65% 7.99% 0.34%

1256 Terrell 17.15% 17.18% 0.03% 1320 Vega 21.27% 21.91% 0.64%

1258 Terrell Hills 12.66% 12.63% -0.03% 1324 Venus 11.05% 11.44% 0.39%

31263 Tex Municipal League IEBP 3.96% 5.09% 1.13% 1326 Vernon 17.80% 18.45% 0.65%

21263 Tex Municipal League IRP 9.36% 9.72% 0.36% 1328 Victoria 16.68% 16.76% 0.08%

21260 Texarkana 15.48% 16.07% 0.59% 1329 Vidor 15.55% 15.63% 0.08%

11260 Texarkana Police Dept 16.76% 16.33% -0.43% 1500 Village Fire Department 6.70% 8.08% 1.38%

31260 Texarkana Water Utilities 15.83% 16.36% 0.53% 1331 Volente 6.12% 6.45% 0.33%

1262 Texas City 16.67% 17.05% 0.38% 1330 Waco 12.96% 13.93% 0.97%

11263 Texas Municipal League 15.63% 15.99% 0.36% 1332 Waelder 1.85% 2.33% 0.48%

1265 Texhoma 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1334 Wake Village 13.40% 14.14% 0.74%

Page 10 of 11

Appendix II




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1336 Waller 3.92% 4.57% 0.65% 1374 Whiteface 2.22% 2.82% 0.60%

1337 Wallis 2.35% 3.33% 0.98% 1375 Whitehouse 5.11% 5.26% 0.15%

1338 Walnut Springs 2.01% 3.02% 1.01% 1376 Whitesboro 6.90% 7.30% 0.40%

1340 Waskom 6.40% 6.67% 0.27% 1380 Whitewright 4.35% 4.93% 0.58%

1341 Watauga 13.16% 13.50% 0.34% 1382 Whitney 4.08% 4.28% 0.20%

1342 Waxahachie 14.83% 15.17% 0.34% 1384 Wichita Falls 11.92% 12.54% 0.62%

1344 Weatherford 12.85% 13.34% 0.49% 1386 Willis 9.16% 9.75% 0.59%

1345 Webster 16.97% 16.73% -0.24% 1387 Willow Park 6.60% 7.33% 0.73%

1346 Weimar 17.36% 18.87% 1.51% 1388 Wills Point 10.92% 11.37% 0.45%

1350 Wellington 2.76% 3.94% 1.18% 1390 Wilmer 1.92% 2.90% 0.98%

1352 Wells 3.73% 3.98% 0.25% 1392 Wimberley 2.11% 2.53% 0.42%

1354 Weslaco 5.97% 7.36% 1.39% 1393 Windcrest 7.25% 7.59% 0.34%

1356 West 2.15% 2.63% 0.48% 1395 Winfield 1.79% 2.19% 0.40%

1358 West Columbia 2.44% 3.23% 0.79% 1396 Wink 5.42% 6.54% 1.12%

1359 West Lake Hills 16.47% 16.77% 0.30% 1398 Winnsboro 9.88% 10.13% 0.25%

1361 West Orange 20.22% 20.63% 0.41% 1399 Winona 7.35% 8.77% 1.42%

1365 West Tawakoni 10.54% 11.65% 1.11% 1400 Winters 9.18% 9.96% 0.78%

1364 West Univ. Place 12.83% 13.55% 0.72% 1403 Wolfforth 11.05% 11.23% 0.18%

1363 Westlake 11.38% 11.92% 0.54% 1409 Woodcreek 2.92% 3.24% 0.32%

1362 Westover Hills 1.25% 1.80% 0.55% 1404 Woodsboro 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1366 Westworth Village 10.92% 11.29% 0.37% 1406 Woodville 15.62% 16.27% 0.65%

1368 Wharton 6.05% 6.00% -0.05% 1407 Woodway 15.68% 15.84% 0.16%

1370 Wheeler 8.43% 8.62% 0.19% 1408 Wortham 4.62% 5.57% 0.95%

1372 White Deer 7.09% 7.39% 0.30% 1410 Wylie 14.75% 14.89% 0.14%

1377 White Oak 15.08% 15.11% 0.03% 1412 Yoakum 15.08% 15.43% 0.35%

1378 White Settlement 10.52% 10.74% 0.22% 1414 Yorktown 0.70% 1.40% 0.70%

1415 Zavalla 1.77% 2.65% 0.88%

Page 11 of 11

Date post:	17-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

2015 Actuarial Experience Investigation Study · 2018. 4. 20. · We are pleased to present our...

Documents