Staff review converts Pinnacle Assurance proposal into $150M fund for skilled‑trades training; raises workers’ comp and enforcement questions

Erin Reynolds, Legislative Council staff, opened an April 2 meeting in House Room 109 to review proposed initiative measures that would separate Pinnacle Assurance from the state and create funding for workforce training.

Josh Schultz of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized the measures’ main purposes: convert Pinnacle Assurance from a political subdivision to an independent mutual insurance company; require a one‑time $150 million payment to the state at conversion; require Pinnacle to pay premium taxes; reimburse the Commissioner of Insurance for conversion processing costs; terminate Pinnacle’s affiliation with the Public Employees’ Retirement Association and require a payment to that association; and create a Skilled Workers and Trades Fund to reimburse qualifying education providers for scholarships for Colorado residents seeking training in essential job categories. “To convert Pinnacle Assurance from a political subdivision of the state to an independent mutual insurance company,” Schultz said during the overview.

The proponents present identified the measure’s stated single subject as funding training for skilled workers and trades. John Matthews, identifying himself as a proponent, told staff the measure’s single subject for initiatives 315, 316 and 317 is “to fund training for skilled workers in trades.” Staff repeatedly asked whether each measure met the Colorado Constitution’s single‑subject requirement.

Measures 316 and 317 would, according to the memorandum and proponents’ responses, require Pinnacle to provide workers’ compensation coverage from the date of conversion through Jan. 1, 2029, for employers that cannot procure coverage in the voluntary market. The memorandum adds statutory text (cited as Section 8‑45‑126 in the review) specifying that from July 1, 2027, until Jan. 1, 2029, Pinnacle must provide such coverage under the standards and obligations that applied to Pinnacle as of Dec. 31, 2026. Proponents said the two‑session window was intended to give the General Assembly and the Commissioner of Insurance time to consider provider‑of‑last‑resort options and any needed rulemaking.

Staff raised enforcement questions about how the substantive standards from Article 45 of Title 8 (as of Dec. 31, 2026) would be applied once Part 1 is repealed and whether the measure should clarify whether the Division of Workers’ Compensation retains enforcement authority against Pinnacle after repeal. Proponents acknowledged the comment and said they were considering clarifying language.

Staff also asked about differences from an earlier filing (initiative 249) that had included provisions modifying the process for terminating Pinnacle’s affiliation with the Public Employees’ Retirement Association. The current draft reverts to default statutory procedure in some respects but retains a provision stating that neither the State nor the PERA board may disapprove Pinnacle’s termination of affiliation. Proponents told staff the provision was intended to make clear that, once Pinnacle is no longer a political subdivision, it cannot participate in PERA and there would be no basis to object.

Technical drafting issues were discussed, including recommended standard language for repealing Article 45 of Title 8 (staff suggested phrasing such as “this Article 45 is repealed effective July 1, 2026” and matching section numbers in amending clauses). Proponents noted the measure adds a second part to Article 45 and acknowledged the comment; staff recommended aligning the repeal language with the measure’s structure.

The meeting closed with no formal action taken; staff indicated the comments and questions in the memorandum are intended to inform the proponents’ drafting and the public record. The meeting was adjourned.