Nobody disputes that paid family and medical leave would provide important benefits to employees and employers in Colorado. The problem is that there’s no consensus on how to implement it.

The state Legislature has taken numerous runs at the issue, only to come up empty, prompting a citizen initiative to get Proposition 118 on this year’s ballot. If passed, 118 would create a state insurance program to provide paid family and medical leave benefits in Colorado funded by premiums paid by employers and employees.

Proponents say the cost is reasonable — about $4 a week for the average Colorado employee. Employers and employees each pay a portion of the premium, equivalent to 0.45% of an employee’s wage. The eligibility threshold is similar to unemployment benefits.

For a low cost, employees receive insurance protection and the peace of mind that comes from knowing they won’t have to choose between getting paid or taking care of sick loved ones or themselves. Businesses can offer a benefit most could never afford and Colorado joins the ranks of states that have elected to do the right thing on an important policy issue.

So what’s not to like?

Local governments can’t be forced to participate because it’s an unfunded mandate, which creates an instant equity problem. If it’s so important to provide this benefit, especially with this approach — spreading the cost over the biggest pool possible — then it shouldn’t put a greater burden on the private sector (and more specifically large employers, which we’ll address momentarily).

But the larger point is that the initiative process often sidesteps a more collaborative approach. The analysis and the give-and-take of the legislative process is more suited for something this complex. Granted, lawmakers haven’t figured it out yet, so proponents have every right to go their own way with a solution.

Voters, too, have the right to reject this measure and demand something a little more polished with better assurances that we aren’t creating a new bureaucracy and entitlement program with unforeseen consequences.

Frankly, there’s a lot to like about this proposal — but no real way of knowing how fiscally sound it is until we’re past a point of no return.

It exempts businesses with fewer than 10 employees from paying the employer’s share of the premium — that’s 80 percent of businesses in Mesa County, according to Colorado Families First, a supporter of 118, citing Grand Junction Economic Partnership figures.

But the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce is opposed, as are many other chambers across the state. And the general thinking goes like this: Proposition 118 is predicated on a view that business owners don’t care about their workers. But employers say the opposite is true. In order to attract and retain workers, employers have to treat them right. They develop personal relationships that guide the terms of paid leave. If 118 passes, that employer-employee relationship is handed off to a third party.

That’s not entirely true. If a business has its own paid leave program that meets or exceeds the bar set by the measure, then it could be exempt, based on a process not yet determined. But the larger point stands: 118 creates costs for businesses and employees to establish a $1.2 billion government apparatus that might otherwise be funneled into benefits for workers.

“If we’re going to create policy like this, let’s bring our business community to the table, let’s sit down with our legislators and let’s come up with a solution that is good for Colorado,” said Kristi Pollard, a consultant to the No on 118 campaign. “This is just fraught with opportunity to mess up, for lack of a better term.”

The contributions would come via a payroll deduction, which opponents call a tax. It isn’t — at least in terms of the requirements of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — but it’s money coming out of the pockets of both business owners and workers.

Premiums would start to be collected in 2023 and employees would be eligible to utilize the program the following year. That’s an important buffer considering how COVID-19 has ravaged the economy. But who’s to say the economy will have recovered sufficiently by then for 118 not to further strain businesses?

Gov. Jared Polis has not taken a position on 118, which says something considering that nearly every Democrat in the Legislature has endorsed it.

We haven’t delved into the utilization models that will determine whether premiums will have to be hiked to their upper limits to cover the cost of providing benefits. Proponents say the numbers are good. Opponents have doubts.

It’s a gamble either way. But we don’t like the uncertainty.