Here’s how TRS legislation ended up in the 86th legislative session

As the 86th legislative session came to a close yesterday, there were some significant changes made to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) that warrant a closer look.

TRS Pension Reform

Senate Bill (SB) 12 by Sen. Joan Huffman (R – Houston), sponsored in the House by Rep. Greg Bonnen (R – League City), was passed 31:0 in the Senate and 145:1 in the House on the last day to pass bills. The bill will immediately reduce the funding window on the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) pension from over 90 years to pay off the unfunded liability to under 30 years. Reducing the time frame to less than 30 years also allowed the legislature to provide current retirees with an additional pension payment during the current fiscal year. The 13th check, as the supplemental payment is often called, will be the amount of the retiree’s regular monthly annuity payment up to a maximum amount of $2,000.

ATPE was strongly in support of shoring up the TRS pension fund as it will ensure that the primary retirement income for many Texas educators will be viable for decades to come. The passage of SB 12 also saves the state and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the pension fund’s liabilities, and it puts the TRS fund in a position for policymakers to begin considering a permanent cost of living adjustment for retired educators as early as the next legislative session in 2021.

SB 12 calls for the state’s contribution to immediately increase from 6.8% to 7.5% in the 2020 fiscal year, which begins on Sept. 1, 2019. The state contribution rate will then continue to increase over time until the rate reaches 8.25% in 2024. School districts not paying into Social Security currently contribute 1.5% to the pension fund. Beginning in the 2019-20, all school districts will contribute toward TRS pensions with the district rate increasing by a tenth of a percent each year beginning in the 2021 fiscal year, until the district rate reaches 2% in 2025.  Active school employees’ contributions to TRS will remain at their existing rate of 7.7% for the next two years. Employee contributions will increase to 8% in the 2021-22 school year and 8.25% the following year.

Aside from injecting more money into the TRS pension fund, SB 12 contains a few additional provisions that are worth noting. For one, the bill maintains a provision that ensures that if the state’s contribution to TRS should decline in the future, then school district and active employee contributions to the fund would be reduced by the same percentage. It is worth noting, however, that any future legislature could vote to change this. SB 12 also includes a change for the handful of school districts that currently pay into Social Security on behalf of their employees. As noted above, those districts that opt to make Social Security contributions will no longer enjoy an exemption from paying into TRS, which Rep. Greg Bonnen said would add about $20 million per year to the fund. Only institutions of higher education will now be exempt from participating in contributing into the TRS pension fund for their covered employees.

Here is a summary of the details provided by TRS staff on how the final adopted version of SB 12 is funded over time:


TRS Healthcare

ATPE hoped that the conference committees for SB 12 and House Bill 3, the omnibus school finance bill that also passed, would find better ways to help active and retired teachers deal with the rising costs of their healthcare. There were internal discussions about increasing the state share of active employee health insurance costs. Currently, the state pays $75 per month toward premiums and requires school districts to pay a minimum of $150 per month on behalf of their staff. Employees cover the rest of the cost of their health insurance premiums. SB 12 significantly increases the state’s share of contributions going into the TRS pension system, and the final version of HB 3 does require districts to spend additional dollars on employee compensation (which could include increasing the district’s share of health insurance costs). Despite these improvements, neither bill addressed the inadequacies of the state’s share of active employee premiums in the end.

State lawmakers did make good on their pre-session promises not to raise TRS-Care rates for retiree health insurance. The state budget in House Bill 1 includes $230 million in supplemental funding to cover the projected shortfall in the TRS-Care trust fund. State leaders pushed TRS not to raise rates last fall when it became apparent that the amount of the shortfall for the upcoming biennium was going to be less than originally projected. The savings were largely due a combination of successful TRS contract negotiations and favorable provisions of the federal Affordable Healthcare Act taking effect. Unfortunately, barring a substantial change in the healthcare landscape, the projected shortfall for the 2022-2023 biennium is much larger than what lawmakers had to deal with this session to address the shortfall expected for the next two years.

Share Button

5 thoughts on “Here’s how TRS legislation ended up in the 86th legislative session

  1. Dina P. Hernandez

    I’ not understanding still, if weather or not the paraprofessionals will be getting an increase. We always are the ones forgotten. We are the bones of the structure that builds a school district. Teachers, nurses, counselors and librarians always are the first group who benefits from mandated increases…in my 21 years a a paraprofessional, I ‘ve seen how paras are pulled from their duties to “tutor” one or more academically low students, one to one for months in a daily basis, with no extra compensation… is not supposed to be the teacher’s job?
    Yes, I would love to see “ $ 5,000 or $ 10,000 increases across…” for all the state paras!

  2. Patricia

    I agree. Also forgotten are the “maintenance” staff. This group is not just janitors, but also skilled and highly skilled electricians, plumbers, mechanics, network, and computer technicians, and Network Administrators. Where would districts be without these people who often work over 60 hours or more a week to be sure kids and teachers are able to work safely, comfortably, and digitally without interruption???

    1. Monty Exter Post author

      Patricia and Dina, thank you for your comments. While HB3 does not require districts to provide para-professionals with a pay raise it does allow districts to use part (25%) of the money a district is required to spend on compensation increases for full-time non-administrative employees on employees who are not teachers, librarians, counselors, or nurses. That group would largely be the paraprofessionals and other staff that you have collectively referenced in your comments. Additionally, there is no prohibition in law (including HB 3) preventing a district from spending more than the minimum required amount on compensation increases for virtually any district employee.

      Sadly, neither teachers, librarians, counselors, or nurses nor para-professionals / other staff are required to receive a $5,000 or $10,000 raise, nor is that level of raise funded for most districts.

  3. brenda cotton

    Since there is such a teacher shortage, why weren’t retired teachers grandfathered to be able to teach full time? I think this would benefit all school districts, but especially the ones in West Texas.

  4. Patricia Duncan

    I have been on TRS disability retirement since 2005. There has been no cost of living increase at all, and just one extra “13th month” payment. The purchasing power of my monthly benefits has decreased year after year and there seems to be no hope of financial relief. I wonder if any lobbyists or legislators are working to permanently improve this situation for retired Texas teachers.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *