Colorado House Bill HB1159

Colorado 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Failed: 4/25/24
• Refer: 1/31/24

Caption

Contracted Private Employee Exclusion from Public Employees' Retirement Association

Impact

The bill's passage would prevent employees of third-party private entities from accessing retirement benefits under PERA, potentially altering the employment landscape and financial viability for various contracted services within public education. The reference to critical staffing shortages highlights the precarious situation of hiring staff for essential educational services, indicating that this limitation may exacerbate existing issues by discouraging third-party entities from operating in Colorado if their employees are barred from such benefits. Consequently, important services funded through these contracts may face disruptions.

Summary

House Bill HB1159 introduces a moratorium on the inclusion of employees from private third-party entities in the Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) membership until June 30, 2025. This legislative measure addresses the recruitment challenges faced by Colorado's public schools and aims to mitigate the ongoing staffing shortages, especially in the rural areas where such shortages are particularly pronounced. By restricting eligibility for PERA membership, the bill seeks to maintain a clear distinction between public employees and those employed by private contractors that perform services for public entities, such as schools.

Contention

Key points of contention surrounding HB1159 include concerns from different stakeholders about the implications of such exclusionary measures on educational service delivery. Some legislators and community members argue that restricting access to retirement benefits may dissuade qualified individuals from working in these contracted positions, thereby impacting the availability and quality of educational services for students. Critics of the bill argue that it may inadvertently drive essential staffing resources away from already struggling school systems, while proponents believe it is necessary to preserve the integrity and viability of the state’s retirement system.