DENVER – The Colorado Senate gave an initial OK to a bill that seeks to shore up the state’s ailing public pension plan Monday morning.

Senate Bill 200 still has to pass a formal vote in the upper chamber, where Republicans have a one-seat majority, before the Democratic majority in the House has its chance to write amendments, which they are certain to do, given the ideological battles over how to fix the state pension.

Senate Democrats tried and failed to amend the bill for over 90 minutes Monday, seeking to put in more money from state employees, less from employers and take out a private retirement plan option favored by Republicans.

They did, however, remove a provision that would make it harder for workers to qualify for early retirement with full benefits.

The bill is sponsored in the House by two powerful lawmakers, Majority Leader KC Becker of Boulder and House Finance Committee chairman Dan Pabon of Denver.

Ultimately a conference committee made up of members from both chambers could work out a compromise for both chambers to vote on before session ends on May 9.

The gap between what the Public Employees’ Retirement Association has and what it needs is somewhere between $32 billion and $50 billion over the next three decades, and people on both side of the question on how to fix it agree that another economic downtown could unravel the retirement fund for more than 650,000 state, local and school employees.

Through two Senate committee votes so far, the legislation is yet to pick up a Democratic vote. In the Senate Finance Committee on March 15. former Democratic Sen. Cheri Jahn, now an independent, voted in favor of the bill with reservations, so it could continued to be worked on, she said then.

The bipartisan bill was stripped of a key provision favored by some Democrats – more money from taxpayers to help fill the budget hole.

As it’s currently written, state, local and school employers – taxpayers, that is – would not have to put in an additional 2 percent above the current 20.15 percent contribution.

Most people who use the pension will be paying 3 percent more in deductions and retirees will be receiving less in cost-of-living allowances – from 2 percent to 1.25 percent, after a two-year timeout with no increases.

The bipartisan Joint Budget Committee, however, has earmarked $225 million for PERA, which could become a political volleyball when lawmakers start hammering out the next year’s spending plan this week.

Democrats also aren’t crazy about including a 401(k)-type investment option for future state employees. The bill’s Republican sponsors, Sens. Jack Tate of Centennial and Kevin Priola of Henderson, said people who don’t intend to spend their careers in government service shouldn’t be locked into the pension plan, while only adding more liabilities and risk to the fund.

Opponents of the move says it will do nothing to solve the shortfall, doing more to undermine the pension in the future than rescue it now.

Republicans built in a taxpayer supplement that would make up the difference to the pension, when employees opt out.

“It would do away with the plan to lure people away from direct benefit to direct contribution, to seduce them into going into a plan that all the studies degree give them less for their money, yet will cost taxpayers far, far more,” said Sen. Sen. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village.

Sen. Jim Smallwood, R-Parker, said it shouldn’t be up to the state to decide that for individuals.

“There are plenty of millennials who would like to be in control of their investments,” he said. “In some cases that might mean being more conservative with how they invest their money – compared to the efficient frontier that’s built by the PERA board – in other cases, it might be more aggressive.”