Colorado § 31-31-101 - Legislative declaration.

§ 31-31-101. Legislative declaration.

The general assembly hereby declares that the establishment of police officers' and firefighters' pension plans in this state is a matter of statewide concern that affects the public safety and general welfare, that the ability of pension funds to pay earned benefits to present and future members is a necessary corollary to the establishment of pension plans, and that statewide pension plans establishing pension benefits that can be fully funded with local money will permit the continuation of pension plans for police officers and firefighters in this state. In addition, the general assembly declares that any pension plan must be actuarially sound to assure the security of the pension system and that this article is enacted to provide for the stability and security of police officers' and firefighters' pension plans in this state. The general assembly further declares that state money provided to municipalities, fire protection districts, and county improvement districts do not constitute a continuing obligation of the state to participate in the ongoing normal costs of pension plan benefits, except for state funding of death and disability retirement benefits as specified in this article, but are provided in recognition that the local governments are currently burdened with financial obligations relating to pensions in excess of their present financial capacities. It is the intent of the general assembly in providing state money to assist the local governments that state participation decrease annually, terminating at the earliest possible date.

Source: L. 96: Entire article added with relocations, p. 893, § 1, effective May 23. L. 2026: Entire section amended, (SB 26-039), ch. 37, p. 178, § 2, effective August 12.

Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as § 31-30-1001.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 31-31-101 is similar to § 31-30-1001 as it existed prior to the 1996 amendment that relocated parts 3 through 10 of article 30, relevant cases construing the provisions of that section have been included in the annotations to this section.

Intention of general assembly in enacting plan was to preempt benefits provided under Denver city charter. The payment of state plan benefits in addition to those provided by the Denver city charter would disserve the basic purpose of the legislation which is to relieve communities of the intolerable financial burdens they would otherwise face in connection with their pension plans. Peterson v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n, 725 P.2d 81 (Colo. App. 1986).

The Public Employee Retirement Association and the Policemen's and Firemen's Pension Reform Act statutory provisions have established a defined benefit contributory pension system in which most public employees are required to participate. By making these contributions, employees obtain a limited vesting of pension rights, which ripen into vested pension rights upon attainment of the respective eligibility requirements. Colo. Springs Fire Fighters v. Colo. Springs, 784 P.2d 766 (Colo. 1989).

Plaintiffs not entitled to greater benefits under Denver plan. Peterson v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n, 725 P.2d 81 (Colo. App. 1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 759 P.2d 720 (Colo. 1988).

Prior to death, benefits are partially vested and may be changed. Prior to a police officer's or firefighter's death, there is limited or partial vesting of survivor benefits, and, until survivor benefits fully vest, a pension plan can be changed; however any adverse change must be balanced by change that is beneficial, actuarially necessary or one that strengthens or improves pension plan. Peterson v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n, 759 P.2d 720 (Colo. 1988), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 759 P.2d 720 (Colo. 1988).

Diminished benefits offered under state plan were offset by improved actuarial soundness and more stable funding. Though adoption of state plan meant reduced benefits to persons formerly covered by Denver city pension plan, this reduction was justified by improved funding and increased chance that pension fund obligations would be fulfilled. Peterson v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n, 759 P.2d 720 (Colo. 1988).