FY 2017 EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN

Transcription

1 28th Legislature 2016 A CASE OF INFLATED REVENUES AND UNDERESTIMATED EXPENDITURES This report provides a comprehensive review of the FY 2017 Executive Supplemental Budget: Multi-Year Financial Summary - General Fund. FY 2017 EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN PREPARED BY: SENATE MINORITY RESEARCH OFFICE The review includes a discussion of the long-term revenue and expenditure assumptions that are included as part of the Governor s supplemental budget request. The review concludes that without revenue changes or continued executive expenditure restrictions the budget is not sustainable beyond FY Published: January 7 th, 2016 State Senator Sam Slom (R-9 Oahu) Minority Leader State Capitol Room 214 Honolulu, HI Phone: (808) senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov Prepared by: Paul Harleman, MBA Budget Director Senate Minority Research Office Phone: (808) p.harleman@capitol.hawaii.gov hawaii-senateminority.com hawaiiopenbudget.com

2 A CASE OF INFLATED REVENUES AND UNDERESTIMATED EXPENDITURES I. INTRODUCTION On December 22, 2015, Governor Ige transmitted his Executive Supplemental Budget for FY 2017 to the legislature for its approval. The Governor s supplemental operating budget includes a request for $297.6 million in additional general funds. During the legislative budget hearings, substantial emphasis by the legislature is generally placed on the various departmental requests for additional funding. Although the departmental budget requests receive extensive deliberation by the legislative money committees, a disproportionate amount of scrutiny is dedicated to the state s multi-year financial plan. The credibility of financial plans is always determined by the quality of the assumptions that drive projections of future revenues and expenditures. The state s multi-year financial plan is an integral part of the state budgeting process as it helps to identify revenue and expenditure trends that could have an impact on immediate or long-term government policies and services. If used effectively, the state s multi-year financial plan allows for improved decision-making in maintaining fiscal discipline. For the state multi-year financial plan to be effective, all individual departmental budget requests that are currently being deliberated have to be placed in the broader context of the state s long term fiscal health. However, without a clear understanding of the financial assumptions and corresponding risks that are associated with the state s multi-year financial plan, the legislature and the public are unable to make informed decisions on the budget. This report seeks to fill this void with a a brief discussion of the underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions as well as the long-term financial risks that are associated with the FY 2017 multi-year financial plan. Since general funds account for more than half of the state budget, the following discussion is limited to the general fund section of the state s multi-year financial plan. II. REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Pursuant to the Article 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, the Council on Revenues is tasked with the projection of state revenues. The Council on Revenues is an independent body of economists and business executives. They use a combination of econometric modeling and personal judgments to come up with a consensus forecast for the current and following fiscal year. For the remaining 4 years that are included in the state s multi-year financial plan, the Council on Revenues has historically used the longterm General excise Tax (GET) growth rate (5%) as the dominant revenue assumption. On January 7 th, 2016, the Council on Revenues increased their revenue projections for FY 2016 from 6% to 6.7% 1. This means that a projected total of $83 million in additional tax revenues would be available for FY The revised revenue projections are based on the tax collections for the first 5 months of the fiscal year. On March 10 th, the Council on Revenues is expected to meet again to discuss any projected revenue adjustments resulting from analysis of the actual tax collections for the remaining months of FY The revenue forecast is based on the actual tax collections for the months of June-November State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 2

3 Table 1: Impact of the Council on Revenues, January 7 th Projections (in thousands) FY Tax Revenues: Council (9/3/15) $6,079,249 $6,413,608 $6,766,356 $7,104,674 $7,424,384 $7,758,481 $8,107,613 Revised Growth Rate 6.70% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Tax revenues: Council (1/7/16) $6,119,395 $6,455,962 $6,811,040 $7,151,592 $7,473,414 $7,809,717 $8,161,155 Additional Anticipated Tax Revenues $40,146 $42,354 $44,684 $46,918 $49,030 $51,236 $53,542 Overall, since the 2009 recession, the state economy has experienced a relatively long period of stable economic growth. The Council on Revenues members did correctly point out that there are signs that the economic growth could begin to contract as early as FY In addition, the Council members also warned that the current volatility to the exchange rates for critical tourist markets could impact the state s economy in both the short and long term. Because of the economic uncertainty and the fact that the state s economy has potentially reached a cyclical peak, it is important to make accurate assumptions with respect to revenue and expenditure growth. III. EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS 1. There is a clear lack of transparency with respect to the expenditure growth assumptions In contrast to the clarity and transparency of the revenue forecasting process, the process for expenditure projections is much less transparent. According to the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA), government financial plans should meet the following three criteria 3 : Financial plans should extend several years into the future. Underlying assumptions and methodology should be clearly stated and made available to stakeholders in the budget process. Financial plans should be concisely presented in the final budget document. The state s multi-year financial plan does include projections for 6 years and therefore complies with the criteria. It does not, however, comply with the remaining two criteria. The Senate Minority has 2 During the January 7 th, 2016, Council of Revenues meeting, Dr. Bonham and Elizabeth Cambra mentioned that their forecasting models indicate diminishing growth rates for the tourism and construction industry for the years beyond FY 2018, which could indicate that the state s economy has potentially reached a peak in the business cycle. 3 GFOA (February, 2014). Best Practices for Financial Forecasting in the Budget Preparation Process. Retrieved from: State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 3

4 consistently argued that the lack of a clear explanation of the long-term expenditure assumptions prevents the legislature and the public to make informed fiscal decisions. A clear example of this lack of clarity was recently demonstrated during the state budget director s testimony at the joined Ways and Means and Finance committee of January 5 th, During this testimony, both committee chairs correctly highlighted that the Governor s financial plan for the supplemental budget was understated because it didn t include an estimate of collective bargaining agreements that expire in FY This is something that the Senate Minority surfaced last year and raises the important question of how transparent the current budgeting process actually really is. Because the current multi-year financial plan lacks any substantive details on the assumptions that are used to develop the expenditure figures for the years beyond FY 2017, it is not a reliable and objective financial plan. 2. The state has consistently underestimated long-term expenditure growth. Under the state s Planning, Programming and Budgeting (PPB) system, departments submit their longterm program budget to the Department of Budget of Finance, which reviews these plans and includes them in the long-term expenditure projections in the state s financial plan. This process is far from transparent, because no details are provided to substantiate these growth projections. As table 2 highlights, expenditure growth assumptions have historically been underestimated. Table 2: Analysis of the accuracy of previous general fund expenditure projections $6,600.0 $6,400.0 $6,200.0 $6,000.0 $5,800.0 $5,600.0 $5,400.0 $5,200.0 On average expenditures have been understated by the following: FY 2012: $80.9 million (1%) FY 2013: $ million (3%) FY 2014: $455.1 million (8%) FY 2015: $491.7 million (8%) See Appendix 1 for references and calculations $5,000.0 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Long-Term Expenditure Projections Actual Expenditures See Appendix table 1 for calculations and references. State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 4

5 3. The Governor s supplemental financial plan assumes that expenditures will decline by 1% in FY 2018 and then grow by an annual average of 2% which is overly optimistic. Under the current FY 2017 supplemental multi-year financial plan, expenditures are projected to decline by 1% in FY 2018 and grow by an annual average of 2% thereafter. This is an overwhelmingly optimistic assumption, given the fact that the average annual inflation is around 2%. Without any clarification on specific policy changes and with the historical track record for consistently under estimating long-term expenditure growth, a more reliable statistical method would be to use the historical expenditure trend as the basis. This method is consistent with the approach of the Council on Revenues and is widely used among governments. 4. Based on the historical expenditure trend, the Governor s financial plan underestimates future expenditures by a total of $1.2 billion (FY ) Over the last 14 years, general fund expenditures have grown by an annual average of 4.9%. If the annual average is applied to the expenditure growth projections for the fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the state s financial plan understates aggregate long-term expenditures by a total of $1.2 billion 4. Table 3. Proposed Adjustments to the Governor s Financial Plan Adjustment based on historical expenditure growth trend FY Total $ $ $ $ $1, An estimated annual expense of $85 million in collective bargaining is not included in the Governor s financial plan. Last year, when the FY biennium budget was enacted, the Senate Minority pointed out that the state s financial plan was understated because it didn t include a contingency for expiring collective bargaining agreements in FY Prudent fiscal management practices stipulate that contingencies for future legal mandates should be included in financial plans. Both the actuarial valuation reports for the Employment Retirement System (ERS) and Employer Union Trust Fund (EUTF) are based on a payroll growth assumption of 3.5% 5. If this assumption is applied to the contingency for expiring collective bargaining contracts, it amounts to an estimated $85 million annually 6. 4 The $1.2 million is based on the following formula: FY 2017 total general fund expenditures as listed in the Executive Supplemental Budget Multi-Year Financial Summary (General Fund) x 1.049) (FY 2018 total general fund expenditures). This is repeated on a compounded basis to account for the remaining years of the financial plan. 5 The EUTF includes a 3.5% payroll growth assumption (page 43 of FY 2014 actuarial valuation report). The ERS uses a 3.5% payroll growth assumption (page 32 of FY 2014 actuarial valuation report). 6 The amounts are based on the following formula: (projected state payroll as stated in the actuarial valuation reports) *(FY 2017 general fund/total FY 2017 budget all means of financing) )*payroll growth assumption. State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 5

6 Table 4: Financial Impact of Collective Bargaining Payroll Increase 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Annual General Fund Increase (in Millions) $21.40 $42.80 $64.30 $85.70 $ The Governor s financial plan fails to account for the $19 million in annual expenses for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) In addition to collective bargaining, the Governor s financial plan also fails to account for the recent court ruling in favor of the DHHL. Recently, the First Circuit Court ruled that the legislature has failed to appropriate sufficient sums to the DHHL for its administrative and operating budget in violation of its constitutional duty to do so. This failure includes every fiscal year since at least The DHHL request for sufficient operational funding amounts to $28 million. The current appropriation is $9.6 million in general funds, which means that an additional $19.2 million in general funds is needed in order to comply with the court s ruling. VI. DISCUSSION OF LONG-TERM FINANCIAL RISKS 1. A 1% increase in the health insurance cost assumption for the EUTF increases the annual required contribution by an estimated $121 million. The rising costs to fund retirement benefits for state employees has been a well-documented matter. As a result of the significant financial risks that the unfunded retirement benefits pose to the state s general fund, the legislature passed ACT 268 during the 2013 legislative session. ACT 268 requires the State of Hawaii to pay for the full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) for both the Employer Retirement System (ERS) and the Employer Union Trust Fund (EUTF). The share of the State of Hawaii in the unfunded liability for the ERS and EUTF amounts to $14.9 billion. Table 5: UAAL and ARC: ERS and EUTF (in Millions) Fund UAAL ARC Employment Retirement System (ERS) 8 $6,448 $530 Employer Union Trust Fund (EUTF) $8,530 $743 Total $14,978 $1,273 7 Source: 8 The ERS is a multi-employer pension fund. The FY 2014 doesn t include a breakdown of the ARC and UAAL by employer. The assumption that is used is that the State of Hawaii s portion of the ARC and UAAL amounts to 75%. The formula that is used to derive at this percentage is as follow: State of Hawaii payroll/total ERS payroll. State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 6

7 Starting in FY 2019 the legislature is required to pay for the full ARC over the next 30 years to pay down unfunded liability for both the ERS and EUTF. The combined ARC for both the ERS and EUTF amounts to $1.2 billion annually. With respect to the FY 2015 executive supplemental budget request, the full ARC amounts to 19% of the state s general fund appropriations. The Governor s recent proposal to expedite the funding schedule by including full funding in his FY 2017 budget request rather than delaying it until the required FY 2019, has raised some controversy. The governor proposed to include an additional $163.9 million for the prefunding requirement of the EUTF 9. The request for additional funding is certainly a fiscally responsible decision, as it could generate long-term savings for taxpayers. However, from a risk management standpoint it is important to draw a clear distinction between the annual required contribution requirements for the ERS and EUTF. Both annual required contributions for the ERS and EUTF are determined by actuarial valuations. This means that the unfunded liability for both funds as well the annual required contributions are determined by actuarial estimates. The risks that are associated with the pension and health insurance annual payments are fundamentally different From a risk management standpoint it is important to draw a clear distinction between the annual required contributions for both funds, because they are based on a different set of assumptions. The ERS provides fixed pension payments to retirees, for which costs are stipulated in the contracts that state employees signed. The EUTF, on the other hand, provides health insurance coverage to current and retired state employees. Since the costs for health insurance premiums fluctuate over time, it is very important to differentiate between the two funds. The current actuarial valuation of the EUTF, assumes that health costs and premium increases for HMSA and Kaiser health insurance plans will increase by an annual average 9% and 6.4 % respectively from FY 2014 to FY With the passage of the Federal Affordable Care Act, however, average premiums have been growing at much higher rates. The sensitivity analysis of the EUTF, reveals that a 1% increase in the average aggregate health cost and premium assumption leads to a 21% increase in the annual required contribution, which amounts to an estimated increase of $121 million (see Appendix 1). With the expiring collective bargaining agreements, the state will have to renegotiate new health insurance contracts for state employees. With the increased health insurance premiums it is fiscally prudent to expect that the health cost and premium assumption must be adjusted. This would lead to a higher annual required contribution. Rather than waiting on the new actuarial valuation report for the EUTF, the legislature should anticipate the risk of increasing annual required contribution requirements for the EUTF in their budget deliberations. 9 Budget and Finance Testimony. Joined WAN/FIN Committee. January 5 th, State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 7

8 2. Annual Spending Growth is surpassing Annual Revenue Growth The structural budget shortfalls that the state faces were first predicted by the independent Tax Review Commission in According to their model, there is a structural average annual general fund deficit of $317 million 10. The Tax Review Commission s conclusion was based on an independent model that evaluated revenue and expenditure growth for existing government programs. Since both revenues and expenditures fluctuate over time, the Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is alternative method that is commonly used to measure the growth rate for investments over a period of time. If the CAGR is applied to the state revenues and expenditures for the last 13 years, it is clear that expenditure growth is surpassing revenue growth. This means that expenditures are growing more rapidly in comparison to state revenues. The Expenditure growth trend is unsustainable The historical trend for the period FY shows that the growth rates (CAGR) for state expenditures (4.8%) has slightly surpasses that growth rate of anticipated revenues (4.9%). This means that without structural policy reforms or budget cuts, the current general fund revenue structure is not sustainable in the long-run. Table 6: General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Growth (FY ) 15% 10% 5% 0% % -10% Annual Expenditure Growth Expenditure Growth (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) Annual Revenue Growth Revenue Growth (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) 10 The $317 million annual projected general fund shortfall is the average of the projected budget shortfalls for FY under the PFM Baseline Scenario (Cash Basis). Source: State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 8

9 3. Fiscal reserves are rapidly deteriorating and could impact the state s bond rating If the Governor s financial plan is adjusted for collective bargaining, DHHL funding, as well as the historical expenditure growth trend, the proposed general fund expenditures could only be sustained trough FY This scenario would be unconstitutional and the Governor will have no choice but to use his executive power to expand the current expenditure restrictions, in order to balance the budget. However, the current budget shortfall and the rapidly deteriorating fiscal reserve could have a negative impact on the state s bond rating. The current reserves are far below the recommended 17% minimum GFOA requirement. The GFOA recommends 1 that governments, at a minimum, maintain an unrestricted budgetary fund balance in their general fund of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular fund operating expenditures. Note: On an annual basis, two months of operating expenses amounts to a 17% recommended reserve policy. Table 7. Fiscal reserves (in Millions) Fiscal Reserves FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Carry-over Ending Balance (Governor's Financial Plan) & Emergency Budget Reserve Fund $872.8 $492.2 $419.3 $488.9 $696.0 $1,120.3 Adjusted Carry-over Ending Balance & Emergency Budget Reserve Fund $872.8 $430.7 ($281.9) ($475.9) ($519.9) ($417.8) GFOA Recommended Reserve Policy $1,019.9 $1,076.0 $1,135.2 $1,191.9 $1,245.6 $1,301.6 Carry-over Ending Balance (Governor's Financial Plan) 14% 8% 6% 7% 9% 14% Adjusted Carry-over Ending Balance 14% 7% -4% -7% -7% -5% Note: The Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund is not included in this table, because it does not fit GFOA definition of unrestricted general fund balance. V. CONCLUSION An objective financial plan seeks to estimate revenues and expenditures as accurately as possible. A conservative financial plan builds in a layer of contingencies for future expenditures. The Governor s financial plan that was submitted in conjunction with the executive supplemental budget for FY 2017 fails to do exactly that. The following 6 conclusions were drawn in this report: 1. There is a clear lack of transparency with respect to the expenditure growth assumptions in the Governor s financial plan 2. The state has consistently underestimated long-term expenditure growth 3. The Governor s financial plan assumes that expenditures will decline by 1% in FY 2018 and then grow by an annual average of 2%, which is overly optimistic State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 9

10 4. Based on the historical expenditure trend, the Governor s financial plan underestimates expenditures beyond FY 2018 by a total of $1.2 billion 5. An estimated $85 million in collective bargaining appropriations is not included in the Governor s financial plan 6. The Governor s financial plan fails to account for the $19 million that is needed to satisfy the constitutional funding mandate for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DDHL) Based on these conclusions, it would be fiscally prudent to adjust the Governor s proposed financial plan. Table 8 provides an adjusted financial plan that accounts for the historical expenditure growth trend, as well as collective bargaining and DHHL funding. Based on the adjusted financial plan, it is clear that the current executive supplemental budget for FY 2017 could only be sustained until FY Under the state constitution, the Governor is required to balance the budget. That means that expenditures cannot exceed the available resources, which includes both anticipated revenues and the available carry-over ending balance. Under the most recent Council on Revenues projection, and without any executive spending restrictions, the proposed budget is simply unsustainable. The Senate Minority urges the legislature to take the findings of this report into consideration during the upcoming budget deliberations. Table 8. Adjusted Executive Supplemental Budget Multi-Year Financial Plan 1. GOVERNOR S FINANCIAL PLAN FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Projected Revenues (Council on Revenues 1/07/2016) $6,119 $6,456 $6,811 $7,152 $7,473 $7,810 Projected non-tax revenues (Council on Revenues 9/3/2015) $720 $785 $802 $821 $828 $836 Total Revenues $6,839 $7,241 $7,613 $7,926 $8,302 $8,646 Total Expenditures $6,862 $7,687 $7,647 $7,862 $8,051 $8,177 Revenues over (under) Expenditures ($23) ($446) ($34) $64 $250 $ RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GOVERNOR S FINANCIAL PLAN Historical Expenditure Growth (580.2) (159.6) (196.2) (269.4) Expiring CB Contracts ($85M) and DHHL Funding Mandate ($19M) (104.0) (104.0) (104.0) (104.0) (104.0) Total Adjustments (104.0) (684.2) (263.6) (300.2) (373.4) Adjusted Revenues over (under) Expenditures (23.20) (550.04) (718.51) (200.11) (50.04) Adjusted Carry-Over Ending Balance (503.75) (703.86) (753.90) (657.90) State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 10

11 APPENDIX 1. Multi-Year Financial Plan Expenditure Growth Forecasting Errors (in Millions) FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Biennium Budget - FY $5,741.2 $5,875.3 $5,964.2 $6,065.0 Supplemental Budget - FY $5,379.3 $5,495.0 $5,605.9 $5,702.3 Supplemental Budget - FY x x $5,890.7 $6,077.7 Average Long-Term Expenditure Projections: $5,560.3 $5,685.2 $5,820.3 $5,948.3 Actual Expenditures: $5,641.2 $5,842.3 $6,275.4 $6,440.0 Absolute Forecasting Error $80.9 $157.2 $455.1 $491.7 Relative Forecasting Error 1% 3% 8% 8% Note: Absolute expenditures are derived from the executive budgets that were introduced in the following years. The Executive Multi-Year Financial Summary General Fund includes a column with actual figures. 2. Employer Union Trust Fund Sensitivity Analysis Health Care Cost Trend Assumption (in Millions) Actuarial Valuation Study OPEB Variables Expected Results Impact of 1% Increase in the Health Care Trend Rate Impact of 1% Decrease in the Health Care Trend Rate Impact of 1% Increase in the Health Care Trend Rate Impact of 1% Decrease in the Health Care Trend Rate Impact of 1% Increase in the Health Care Trend Rate Impact of 1% Decrease in the Health Care Trend Rate 2009 Present $12,330.9 $14,712.2 $10,479.8 $2, $1, % -15.0% Value of Benefits UAAL $10,319.7 $12,084.2 $8,913.3 $1, $1, % -13.6% ARC $887.1 $1,073.0 $743.4 $ $ % -16.2% 2011 Present $13,563.7 $16,263.6 $11,460.1 $2, $2, % -15.5% Value of Benefits UAAL $11,184.3 $13,143.4 $9,615.3 $1, $1, % -14.0% ARC $894.5 $1,085.6 $746.5 $ $ % -16.5% 2013 Present $10,295.8 $12,314.7 $8,724.6 $2, $1, % -15.3% Value of Benefits UAAL $8,529.5 $10,005.7 $7,350.0 $1, $1, % -13.8% ARC $742.8 $900.0 $621.2 $ $ % -16.4% Note: All figures and assumptions are derived from the actuarial valuation reports for the EUTF. Since the FY 2014 didn t include a sensitivity analysis section, the 2013 sensitivity analysis is based on the averages from the 2009 and 2011 valuation reports. State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 11

12 State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 12

13 3. Analysis of actual revenue and expenditure growth (FY ) FY Actual Expenditures Actual Revenues Actual Revenues over Expenditures Annual Expenditure Growth Annual Revenue Growth Expenditure Growth (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) Revenue Growth (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) Source 2004 $3,826,338 $3,860,456 $34, $4,157,011 $4,391,004 $233,993 9% 14% 8.6% 13.7% CAFR 2006 $4,599,976 $4,905,322 $305,346 11% 12% 9.6% 12.7% CAFR 2007 $5,051,054 $5,104,058 $53,004 10% 4% 9.7% 9.8% CAFR 2008 $5,437,614 $5,204,747 -$232,867 8% 2% 9.2% 7.8% CAFR 2009 $5,345,362 $4,824,278 -$521,084-2% -7% 6.9% 4.6% CAFR 2010 $4,878,654 $4,811,699 -$66,955-9% 0% 4.1% 3.7% CAFR 2011 $4,939,928 $5,026,908 $86,980 1% 4% 3.7% 3.8% CAFR 2012 $5,468,324 $5,641,054 $172,730 11% 12% 4.6% 4.9% CAFR 2013 $5,618,100 $6,189,291 $571,191 3% 10% 4.4% 5.4% CAFR 2014 $6,275,400 $6,096,200 -$179,200 12% -2% 5.1% 4.7% CAFR 2015 $6,189,200 $6,541,900 $352,700-1% 7% 4.5% 4.9% FY17 Supplement al Executive Budget 2016 $6,584,744 $6,723,500 $138,756 6% 3% 4.6% 4.7% FY17 Supplement al Executive Budget 2017 $7,131,848 $7,086,100 -$45,748 8% 5% 4.9% 4.8% FY17 Supplement al Executive Budget State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 13

14 ACRONYMS ARC CAGR DHHL ERS EUTF GFOA PBB UAAL Annual Required Contribution Compounded Annual Growth Rate Department of Hawaiian Homelands Employment Retirement System Employer Union Trust Fund Government Financial Officers Association Planning, Programming and Budgeting Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability State of Hawaii Senate Minority Research Office Page 14