Cherry Creek School District spent more than $500,000 last school year reimbursing a dozen top administrators for their required employee pension contributions, an executive benefit rarely extended beyond superintendents among schools surveyed by The Denver Gazette.
The benefits come as Colorado school districts confront tightening budgets and declining enrollment, which can reduce state funding tied to student counts while costs for salaries, benefits and other operations continue to rise.
The Denver Gazette surveyed 20 Colorado school districts, primarily along the Front Range, about whether they reimburse superintendents or executive staff for their required contributions to the state’s pension system, the Public Employees’ Retirement Association.
All but two — Adams 14 and Sheridan school districts — responded.
Collectively, the 18 responding districts enrolled 561,075 students last school year, nearly two-thirds of Colorado’s 870,793 public school students.
Of the 18 that responded:
• 72% provide the PERA reimbursement
• Half limit the perk to the superintendent
• Only three — Cherry Creek, Littleton and Poudre — provide it to both the superintendent and executive staff
• Roughly one in four do not provide the benefit: Academy District 20 in Colorado Springs, Eagle County, St. Vrain Valley in Longmont, Thompson in Loveland and Weld RE-4
Colorado’s largest school district, Denver Public Schools, is the lone exception.
DPS provides the reimbursement to executive staff, while Superintendent Alex Marrero’s contract does not include that benefit.
Marrero does receive a separate retirement benefit: For each year he earns a satisfactory evaluation, his contract requires DPS to provide enough money to purchase one year of PERA service credit.
Cherry Creek reported spending $504,759.73 on the perk, more than any other district surveyed for which The Denver Gazette obtained records.
The newspaper obtained records under the Colorado Open Records Act, or CORA, documenting the individual reimbursements from Cherry Creek, Poudre and Littleton. DPS provided its total Friday but has not yet produced the underlying documents after the district’s records custodian invoked a seven-working-day extension, citing a “broadly stated request.”
Records from the four districts show what each spent on PERA reimbursements for executive leadership last fiscal year:
• Cherry Creek School District: $504,759.73
• Poudre School District: $234,623.28
• Denver Public Schools: $207,302.41
• Littleton Public Schools: $168,852.32
Cherry Creek also pays the federal and state income taxes associated with the reimbursements. Greeley-Evans School District does, as well, although it provides the benefit only to its superintendent.
Littleton and Poudre did not provide information about whether they pay the associated taxes. The Denver Gazette sought the information through public records requests and follow-up questions.
Established in 1931, PERA provides retirement benefits to employees at more than 500 government and public agencies. Prefunded, PERA is a substitute for Social Security for most public employees.
PERA is about 69.1% funded, according to the state. That means the fund has about 69 cents for every $1 promised in pension benefits.
Sheila Weinberg, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Truth in Accounting, questioned districts providing additional retirement benefits against the backdrop of an underfunded pension system. Paying this benefit, she said, only increases the district’s pension liability.
“It sounds benign,” Weinberg said.
But, Weinberg added, the reimbursements can amount to significant taxpayer expense.
Founded in 2002, Truth in Accounting is a nonprofit focused on government financial transparency.
Additional retirement benefits for superintendents are not unusual nationally, though the way Colorado districts reimburse required PERA contributions appears difficult to compare with practices elsewhere.
National surveys show school districts frequently supplement superintendent retirement benefits beyond their standard pensions. A 2022 District Administration survey found about 26% of superintendents received additional board-funded contributions to retirement accounts as a contractual perk.
Tax-deferred annuities or private retirement accounts nationally are more common, with a recent survey by AASA, The School Superintendents Association, finding about 41% of superintendents enjoy these provisions.
Neither survey specifically measured districts reimbursing employees for their required public pension contributions, however.
The National School Boards Association and the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems do not track the information. Neither does the Colorado Association of School Boards or CASB.
In Colorado, the practice appears more common than even some education officials realize.
Jubal Yennie, CASB executive director, said he believes the practice is likely uncommon across the state.
“I would expect that most superintendents would not receive reimbursement for a PERA contribution,” Yennie said in an email.
The Denver Gazette’s survey found 12 of the 18 responding districts provide the benefit to their superintendent.
Yennie also expected reimbursements for other executive leaders to be even less common.
On that point, The Denver Gazette’s findings aligned with his experience: only Cherry Creek, Littleton and Poudre provide the benefit to both the superintendent and executive staff.
Districts that provide this benefit to executive staff largely describe it as part of a competitive compensation package.
Cherry Creek, Colorado’s fourth-largest school district with nearly 52,000 students, said the benefit is part of the total compensation provided through employment agreements. Spokesperson Abbe Smith said the practice dates back to at least the 1990s.
As the district’s chief communications officer, Smith is among the administrators who receive the benefit. Records show the district spent $35,096.17 on her PERA reimbursement and associated taxes last school year.
“While the district is experiencing a decline in enrollment, we have a balanced budget going into the 2026-27 school year and are not cutting the salaries of any of our employees,” Smith said.
The district regularly studies the market and benchmarks administrator salaries near the 50th percentile, Smith said.
The benefit comes as Cherry Creek confronts financial pressure.
The district’s most recent audit shows its general fund balance fell by $22.8 million in fiscal year 2024-25 to $71.2 million, while funded enrollment declined by 740 students. Its unassigned general fund balance fell from $17.4 million to $2.5 million.
Molly Lamar, a Cherry Creek parent, questioned spending taxpayer money on additional executive compensation as districts face financial pressures.
“Local residents fund school budgets expecting dollars to go toward direct instruction and fair support for everyday staff,” Lamar said in an email. “Instead, tax dollars are diverted to pad executive compensation packages that go far beyond standard compensation.”
Littleton, which enrolls nearly 13,000 students, offered a similar rationale.
Board President Chérie Garcia-Kuper said the district operates with a lean executive team whose members carry responsibilities that might be divided among multiple positions in larger districts.
“Providing this benefit across our executive leadership, rather than solely to the top role, reflects our belief that every part of our leadership system is essential to keeping our district running smoothly, while ensuring our total compensation remains market-competitive to attract and retain the dedicated talent our schools deserve,” Garcia-Kuper said in an email.
So did Poudre, which enrolls about 29,000 students and has provided the benefit since at least 2002. But board director Kevin Havelda acknowledged the optics can be difficult.
“It doesn’t feel right that people at the top are getting this bonus when the teachers aren’t,” Havelda said.
Weinberg, with Truth in Accounting, said such perks are more common in the private sector than in government and can offer employers flexibility that a salary increase does not.
“When you raise a salary, it’s hard to take the salary back,” Weinberg said.
But ultimately, she said, the cost is borne by the public.