Did polis say he would take funds from PERA?
Executive summary
Yes—Governor Jared Polis has publicly proposed moving money that would benefit PERA through specific budget maneuvers, most prominently by pitching the privatization or “spin‑off” of Pinnacol Assurance as a source of funds for PERA, and later pursuing budget choices that could reduce or delay state contributions; reporting shows Polis framed Pinnacol proceeds as money “to go toward” PERA and also floated short‑term cuts that would affect PERA contributions [1] [2] [3].
1. The plain claim and the clearest evidence
Polis explicitly tied a Pinnacol privatization to PERA funding in public budget materials and media coverage: Colorado Politics reported the governor said proceeds from spinning off Pinnacol would “go toward the Public Employees Retirement Association,” estimating about $100 million per year for five years in one presentation [1], while the Broomfield Enterprise and other outlets covered Polis’ proposal to free up roughly $100 million to “shore up” the state budget and PERA by privatizing Pinnacol [2].
2. How the proposal would channel money — and why wording matters
The mechanism Polis advocated was not a direct raid of PERA’s invested assets but a budgetary transaction: privatize a state‑chartered workers’ compensation entity, generate proceeds or reduced state obligations, and then direct those funds into the general ledger with an intention to shore up PERA’s position [2] [1]. That is materially different from saying “I will take money out of PERA’s funds,” because it contemplates injecting external proceeds into state coffers earmarked to benefit PERA rather than withdrawing PERA reserves, but the political and fiscal effect—new state funding tied to PERA—was described by Polis as purposeful [1] [2].
3. Related proposals that could reduce PERA flows
Reporting also shows Polis pursued other budget moves that critics argue amount to taking money away from PERA or reducing near‑term contributions: a 2025 report said Polis proposed cutting state contributions to the public pension by as much as $38 million next year to cover other state obligations, a step framed as short‑term budget relief and one that would reduce the state’s payments into PERA [3]. Those two strands—seeking new outside funding via Pinnacol and considering reductions in scheduled contributions—create a mixed record of both proposing inflows for PERA and proposing near‑term cuts to contributions [1] [3].
4. PERA’s own framing and independent context
PERA’s public reporting and communications emphasize that the state budget does not directly alter PERA’s funded status but does affect many PERA employers and the broader fiscal context, and PERA’s own materials focus on investment returns and statutory adjustments when explaining funding trajectories [4] [5] [6]. PERA and its watchdogs have also discussed large‑scale options—an independent study suggested potentially seeking $2 billion from the state to improve funding—but those are distinct from Polis’ Pinnacol pitch and legislative budget proposals [7].
5. Competing interpretations, agendas and political risk
Supporters frame Polis’ Pinnacol plan as creative revenue generation to help PERA without raiding pension assets and as a way to modernize a state function; opponents call it risky privatization that could promise money without guarantees and stress that packaging proceeds as PERA relief masks longer‑term liabilities [2] [1]. Likewise, proposals to delay or reduce scheduled state contributions were presented by Polis as temporary budgeting fixes, while critics framed them as breaking commitments of the 2018 reform deal and shifting burdens onto future budgets or employees [3]. Reporting to date documents the proposals and the estimates; it does not show Polis literally saying he would take money directly from PERA’s invested trust funds, only that he proposed moves intended to direct or reallocate state resources related to PERA’s funding [1] [2] [3].
Bottom line
The most accurate statement supported by the reporting is that Polis has proposed actions that would channel external or budgetary resources to PERA (notably a Pinnacol spin‑off he said would “go toward” PERA) and has also considered short‑term cuts or delays to state contributions as a budget tool; the reporting does not show a plain, literal statement from Polis that he would “take funds out of PERA’s trust” in the sense of withdrawing PERA assets, but it does show proposals that would materially change the flow of money into or around PERA [1] [2] [3] [4].