“Colorado lawmakers finish session with little progress on top issues.” – The Denver Post
“The 2016 Colorado legislative session may go down in history as the year of little change.” – Colorado Springs Gazette
“Divided Colorado Legislature wraps year of scant agreement.” – Fort Collins Coloradoan
The Second Regular Session of the Seventieth Colorado General Assembly has concluded, and as reported around the state, this session may be known more for what wasn’t passed, than what it accomplished.
Two bills on investment mandates
There were two bills introduced that affect PERA:
- HB 16-1207: PERA Investments in Renewable Energy Companies – would have required PERA to invest at least one percent of new moneys each year in renewable energy companies.
- PERA opposed
- Bill defeated (11-0 in House Finance Committee)
- Notable: Rep. Van Winkle (R-Highlands Ranch) stated in committee meeting that the bill “misses the mark in confusing whose money it is; it doesn’t belong to us to pursue a social agenda, it belongs to PERA members.”
- HB 16-1284: Concerning Divestment by PERA From Companies That Have Economic Prohibitions Against the State of Israel – requires PERA to divest from all companies that have economic prohibitions against Israel.
- PERA opposed
- Bill passed (54-10-1 in House; 25-9 in Senate; signed by Governor)
- Notable: While the PERA Board voted to oppose this legislation, there was strong support behind it and political headwinds were too strong to stop it. Given the inevitability of this bill’s passage, PERA worked with the sponsors to ensure the bill’s requirements would be manageable to implement.
What we learned this session
The need for education remains; only a handful of legislators who voted on SB 1 in 2010 will still be in office when the next session begins in January 2017. And there are still audiences we haven’t reached with our messages of positive economic impact and the independent studies validating that PERA is more efficient and uses dollars more effectively than any other type of retirement plan.
What’s coming next
- The 2015 CAFR is scheduled to be released by the PERA Board of Trustees on June 21.
- We will continue to monitor proposed federal legislation and Colorado ballot initiatives of interest to our membership. (If you aren’t receiving the biweekly PERA on the Issues newsletter, please subscribe here.)
- PERA staff will once again travel the state this summer and meet with business and community groups, legislators, and Ambassadors. (Learn how you can become an Ambassador advocate for PERA here.)
Thank you
Your involvement and willingness to speak up on behalf of Colorado PERA is an essential part of our effort to protect the retirement security of Colorado’s largest workforce and to remain one of Colorado’s best investments.
2016 Legislation Impacting Colorado PERA
DivestmentThe act of selling one’s investments in a particular company or sector, often for philosophical or political reasons.
Apparently, Rep. Van Winkle’s sentiments that PERA’S money “doesn’t belong to us to pursue a social agenda, it belongs to PERA members” didn’t carry over to HB 16-1284. What will PERA have to divest specifically?
What does CAFR stand for?
Mr. Northrop,
We are currently researching the number of companies and amount of assets that will require divestment under HB 16-1284. The effective date to begin complying with the new law is January 1, 2017.
CAFR stands for Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. We should have listed the full name of the document first, so thank you for asking.
I am concerned about the upcoming socialized health care bill, #69, which will raise the Colorado state tax much higher to pay for the single payer system for Colorado alone. I would like to know what PERA thinks about this bill.
Ms. Dancy,
The PERA Board of Trustees does not generally take a position on ballot initiatives. However, it is important to note there would be significant and unknown changes to PERACare and the premium subsidy PERA benefit recipients receive if Amendment 69 should pass in November.
If Amendment 69 would pass How would it effect Pera Care for retirees living outside of Colorado?