STAFF BUDGET BRIEFING FY 2018-19

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS

JBC WORKING DOCUMENT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT REPRESENT COMMITTEE DECISION

PREPARED BY: CAROLYN KAMPMAN, JBC STAFF NOVEMBER 30, 2017

JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF 200 E. 14TH AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR · DENVER · COLORADO · 80203 TELEPHONE: (303) 866-2061 · TDD: (303) 866-3472 https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/joint-budget-committee

CONTENTS

Department Overview ...... 1 Department Budget: Recent Appropriations ...... 1 Department Budget: Graphic Overview ...... 2 General Factors Driving the Budget ...... 4 Summary: FY 2017-18 Appropriation & FY 2018-19 Request ...... 6

ISSUES Repeal Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program ...... 9 Moffat Tunnel Improvement District ...... 14 Evaluation of Fort Lyon Program ...... 20

APPENDICES A. Numbers Pages ...... 31 B. Recent Legislation Affecting Department Budget ...... 48 C. Update on Long Bill Footnotes and Requests for Information ...... 52 D. Department Annual Performance Report ...... 65

30-Nov-2017 i Local Affairs - brf

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW

The Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) is responsible for building community and local government capacity by providing training, technical, and financial assistance to localities. The Department’s budget is comprised of four sections:

 The Executive Director's Office provides leadership and support, including strategic planning, policy management, accounting, budgeting, purchasing, human resources administration, and public information.

 The Division of Property Taxation operates under the leadership of the Property Tax Administrator, who is appointed by the State Board of Equalization. This division: (1) administers property tax laws, including issuing appraisal standards and training county assessors; (2) grants exemptions from taxation for eligible entities; and (3) values multi-county companies doing business in Colorado, including railroads, pipelines, and other public utilities. The Board of Assessment Appeals is a quasi- judicial body that hears individual taxpayer appeals concerning the valuation of real and personal property, property tax abatements, and property tax exemptions.

 The Division of Housing administers state and federal affordable housing programs, and regulates the manufacture of factory-built residential and commercial buildings.

 The Division of Local Government provides technical assistance and information to local government officials. This division also makes state and federal financial resources available to support community infrastructure and services through statutory formula distributions and grants, including: making state grants and distributions to communities that are socially or economically impacted by mineral extraction and limited gaming activities; distributing Conservation Trust Fund money (derived from lottery proceeds) for parks, recreation, and open space; administering the federal Community Services Block Grant and the Community Development Block Grant; making state grants to communities that are impacted by marijuana-related activities; and distributing the state contribution for certain volunteer firefighter benefits.

DEPARTMENT BUDGET: RECENT APPROPRIATIONS

FUNDING SOURCE FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-192 General Fund1 $24,626,224 $25,487,580 $32,086,084 $31,905,283 Cash Funds 209,312,306 194,098,487 181,821,729 186,009,984 Reappropriated Funds 10,487,107 10,915,745 11,319,391 11,363,249 Federal Funds 76,876,045 75,085,768 80,705,121 80,883,411 TOTAL FUNDS $321,301,682 $305,587,580 $305,932,325 $310,161,927

Full Time Equiv. Staff 172.5 173.9 179.2 178.6 1 Includes General Fund Exempt. 2 Requested appropriation.

30-Nov-2017 1 Local Affairs - brf

DEPARTMENT BUDGET: GRAPHIC OVERVIEW

All charts are based on the FY 2017-18 appropriation.

30-Nov-2017 2 Local Affairs - brf

All charts are based on the FY 2017-18 appropriation.

30-Nov-2017 3 Local Affairs - brf

GENERAL FACTORS DRIVING THE BUDGET

DEDICATED CASH FUND SOURCES The Department awards grants and oversees direct distributions to local governments for various programs with dedicated cash fund revenue sources. The FY 2017-18 appropriation for the Department reflects $154.9 million cash funds for these programs, about half of the Department’s overall budget. These amounts are shown for informational purposes only, and actual expenditures may differ significantly from the amounts shown in the annual Long Bill. These sources include the following:  Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements – state severance tax and federal mineral lease revenues that are distributed to local governments affected by mineral extraction activities through statutory formulas and grants;  Conservation Trust Fund Disbursements – state lottery proceeds distributed to local entities on a formula basis for parks, recreation, and open space purposes; and  Limited Gaming Impact Grants – limited gaming tax revenues distributed to communities impacted by gaming activities.

MAJOR CONSTITUTIONALLY OR STATUTORILY DEDICATED CASH FUND REVENUES ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ($ MILLIONS) FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 REVENUE SOURCE ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE1 Severance Tax $127.1 $140.1 $43.9 $34.5 $75.2 Federal Mineral Lease 72.3 59.6 39.9 46.1 40.4 Conservation Trust Fund 52.1 51.2 57.4 53.4 50.0 Limited Gaming Fund 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 TOTALS $256.5 $255.9 $146.2 $139.0 $170.6 1 Severance tax and federal mineral lease revenue estimates are based on the September 2017 revenue forecast from the Office of State Planning and Budgeting. Please note that for the first four months of FY 2017-18, the Department of Revenue reports severance tax refunds totaling $46.9 million, resulting in a net revenue reduction of $6.5 million. Thus, staff anticipates that the December 2017 forecast of severance tax collections will decrease significantly.

As reflected in the table, severance tax and federal mineral lease revenues are volatile. Oil, gas, and mineral prices and production volumes dictate annual revenue, and these are difficult to project. Further, funds received in one year are not always awarded in the same year and, once awarded, may be expended over multiple years. Because of this, the informational amount included in the Long Bill for Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements is not typically adjusted from year to year. However, in light of actual and projected revenue declines, this figure was reduced from $150.0 million to $100.0 million from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18.

FEDERAL FUNDS Federal funds comprise about one quarter ($80.7 million) of the Department of Local Affairs’ FY 2017-18 appropriation. Most of the Department's federally-funded programs do not require state matching funds and are provided at the discretion of federal authorities. Annual expenditures from some of the major ongoing federal grants administered by this department are summarized in the following table.

30-Nov-2017 4 Local Affairs - brf

ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FROM MAJOR ONGOING FEDERAL GRANTS ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ($ MILLIONS) FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROP.2 Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rental subsidies $44.6 $49.4 $52.2 $50.5 HUD affordable housing development1 6.2 5.0 3.7 12.0 Health and Human Services Community Services Block Grant 6.1 6.3 5.5 6.0 HUD Community Development Block Grant1 14.0 8.3 9.6 5.2 HUD Emergency Shelter and Homeless Prevention Programs 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.8 1 The portion of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that is used for affordable housing development in the appropriation year is included in the affordable housing development amount, rather than the CDBG amount. However, actual expenditures reflect the Department’s practice of expending all CDBG funds in the CDBG line item. In addition, the CDBG amount does not include CDBG-DR (disaster recovery) amounts that are not reflected in the Long Bill.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS OF STATE FUNDS Appropriations to the Department of Local Affairs from the General Fund and the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF) have increased in recent years to support a number of new initiatives, including the following:  An appropriation of $15.3 million from the MTCF provides construction funding, rental assistance, and supportive services for individuals with behavioral health disorders, individuals who are transitioning from the criminal or juvenile justice systems, and other individuals with significant needs who are homeless or at risk of homelessness;  A total of $7.0 million from the MTCF is appropriated for two grant programs to assist local governments in addressing the negative impacts of marijuana legalization;  House Bill 17-1326 appropriates $5.9 million General Fund to provide small business loans and grants that are designed to reduce crime and promote community development in the target communities of north Aurora and southeast Colorado Springs; and  An appropriation of $5.0 million General Fund supports the Fort Lyon Supportive Residential Community, a program that was created in 2013 to provide transitional housing and supportive services to chronically homeless individuals.

30-Nov-2017 5 Local Affairs - brf

SUMMARY: FY 2017-18 APPROPRIATION & FY 2018-19 REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FTE

FY 2017-18 APPROPRIATION: FY 2017-18 Long Bill (S.B. 17-254) $294,037,300 $26,136,451 $175,876,337 $11,319,391 $80,705,121 176.6 HB 17-1221 Gray market enforcement 5,945,392 0 5,945,392 0 0 1.3 HB 17-1313 Civil forfeiture reform 84,451 84,451 0 0 0 0.5 HB 17-1326 Justice reinvestment 5,865,182 5,865,182 0 0 0 0.8 TOTAL $305,932,325 $32,086,084 $181,821,729 $11,319,391 $80,705,121 179.2

FY 2018-19 APPROPRIATION: FY 2017-18 Appropriation $305,932,325 32,086,084 $181,821,729 $11,319,391 $80,705,121 179.2 R1 Housing assistance for reentry population 4,758,600 0 4,758,600 0 0 0.0 R2 Eliminate Marijuana Impact Grant Program (1,120,636) 0 (1,120,636) 0 0 (1.0) Centrally appropriated line items 545,261 (311,185) 641,520 40,853 174,073 0.0 Technical changes 20,000 132,569 (112,569) 0 0 0.0 Non-prioritized requests 19,838 3,615 3,722 8,284 4,217 0.0 Annualize prior year legislation 12,015 (5,773) 17,788 0 0 0.4 Annualize prior year budget actions (5,476) (27) (170) (5,279) 0 0.0 TOTAL $310,161,927 $31,905,283 $186,009,984 $11,363,249 $80,883,411 178.6

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $4,229,602 ($180,801) $4,188,255 $43,858 $178,290 (0.6) Percentage Change 1.4% (0.6%) 2.3% 0.4% 0.2% (0.3%)

R1 HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR REENTRY POPULATION: The request includes an appropriation of $4,758,600 cash funds for FY 2018-19 from the newly created Housing Assistance for Persons Transitioning from the Criminal or Juvenile Justice System Cash Fund. The requested funds would be used to provide housing assistance for persons with behavioral or mental health disorders who are transitioning from incarceration, consistent with S.B. 17-021. The source of funding is a one-time transfer of unspent General Fund money that was appropriated for FY 2016-17 for community corrections programs and services.

R2 ELIMINATE MARIJUANA IMPACT GRANT PROGRAM: The request reflects a decrease of $1,120,636 cash funds from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund to eliminate funding for the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program. This program, created in H.B. 15-1367, provides grants to local governments that do not have retail marijuana sales within their boundaries. The grants are intended to mitigate the impacts of marijuana-related activity in neighboring jurisdictions. The Department recommends eliminating the funding for this program due to minimal demand for grants and the creation of the new Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program. This request is discussed in more detail in the first issue brief.

CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS: The request includes adjustments to centrally appropriated line items, as detailed in the table below.

30-Nov-2017 6 Local Affairs - brf

CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FTE FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS Salary survey adjustment $409,559 $81,338 $49,551 $186,126 $92,544 0.0 Payments to OIT adjustment 92,054 (264,462) 388,735 94,800 (127,019) 0.0 Health, life, and dental adjustment 53,540 (15,168) 6,582 48,261 13,865 0.0 Workers’ compensation adjustment 27,123 (80,369) 32,056 75,436 0 0.0 Vehicle lease payments adjustment 20,218 18,164 0 2,054 0 0.0 AED adjustment 19,242 (5,943) (2,713) 13,303 14,595 0.0 SAED adjustment 19,242 (5,943) (2,713) 13,303 14,595 0.0 Indirect cost assessment adjustment 1,277 140,492 255 (139,882) 412 0.0 Capitol Complex leased space adjustment (65,534) (19,645) 85,839 (242,001) 110,273 0.0 CORE adjustment (17,444) (111,613) 74,939 (35,537) 54,767 0.0 Payment to risk management / property (10,513) (44,099) 8,073 25,513 0 0.0 funds adjustment Legal services adjustment (1,994) (3,278) 1,284 0 0 0.0 Short-term disability adjustment (1,509) (659) (368) (523) 41 0.0 TOTAL $545,261 (311,185) $641,520 $40,853 $174,073 0.0

TECHNICAL CHANGES: The request includes two technical changes, as detailed in the table below.

TECHNICAL CHANGES TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FTE FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS Annual adjustment for volunteer $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 0.0 firefighter retirement plans Fund source adjustment 0 112,569 (112,569) 0 0 0.0 TOTAL $20,000 132,569 ($112,569) $0 $0 0.0

NON-PRIORITIZED REQUESTS: The request includes adjustments for two non-prioritized requests that originate in the Governor’s Office of Information Technology, as detailed in the table below.

NON-PRIORITIZED REQUESTS TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FTE FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS NP2 Operating system suite (OIT-04) $18,246 $3,246 $3,343 $7,440 $4,217 0.0 NP1 Cybersecurity liability insurance 1,592 369 379 844 0 0.0 policy TOTAL $19,838 3,615 $3,722 $8,284 $4,217 0.0

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION: The request includes adjustments for the second-year impact of prior year legislation.

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FTE FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS HB 17-1221 Gray and black market $17,788 $0 $17,788 $0 $0 0.2 marijuana enforcement grant program HB 17-1326 Justice reinvestment crime 1,600 1,600 0 0 0 0.2 prevention initiatives HB 17-1313 Civil forfeiture reform (7,373) (7,373) 0 0 0 0.0 TOTAL $12,015 (5,773) $17,788 $0 $0 0.4

30-Nov-2017 7 Local Affairs - brf

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET ACTIONS: The request includes adjustments for the second-year impact of prior year budget actions.

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET ACTIONS TOTAL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIATED FEDERAL FTE FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FY 2017-18 R2 Rural services ($4,703) $0 $0 ($4,703) $0 0.0 coordinator Annualize merit base pay (708) (28) (107) (572) (1) 0.0 Annualize prior year salary survey (65) 1 (63) (4) 1 0.0 TOTAL ($5,476) (27) ($170) ($5,279) $0 0.0

30-Nov-2017 8 Local Affairs - brf

ISSUE: REPEAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT MARIJUANA IMPACT GRANT PROGRAM

This issue brief describes the two marijuana-related grant programs currently administered by the Department of Local Affairs, and discusses the Department’s proposal to eliminate the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program.

SUMMARY

 The Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program was created in 2015 to provide funding for documented marijuana impacts experienced by local governments that do not impose, levy, or collect any tax on retail marijuana. A total of $3.0 million has been appropriated to date for this program, and grants totaling $907,051 have been paid out to date.

 The Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program was created by H.B. 17-1221 to provide grants to local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys to cover costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of unlicensed and illegal marijuana cultivation or distribution operations. This program prioritizes support for rural agencies and for the investigation and prosecution of operations that are large-scale, involve organized crime, or divert marijuana outside of Colorado. For FY 2017-18, $5.9 million is available for grants and the Department has received applications for nearly $1.0 million in the first of four grant cycles.

 The Department’s FY 2018-19 budget request includes a proposal (R2) to eliminate funding for the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program, resulting in a reduction of $1.1 million cash funds from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund and a reduction of 1.0 FTE for FY 2018-19.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Committee consider introducing legislation to repeal the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program, effective June 30, 2018.

DISCUSSION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MARIJUANA IMPACT GRANT PROGRAM The Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program was created in H.B. 15-13671 and fully funded based on voter approval of Proposition BB in November 2015. The program awards grants to eligible local governments for documented marijuana impacts. The program benefits local governments that do not impose, levy, or collect any tax on retail marijuana or the occupation or privilege of selling retail marijuana. Eligible local governments include:  counties that do not have retail marijuana sales in unincorporated areas but that either: o have a city of town within the county that has such sales; or o border a county with retail marijuana sales; and

1 See Section 24-32-117, C.R.S.

30-Nov-2017 9 Local Affairs - brf

 cities and towns that do not have retail marijuana sales within their boundaries but that are within a county with such sales or within a county contiguous with another county with such sales.

In awarding the grants, the Division of Local Government is required to give priority to eligible local governments that intend to use the money:  for additional law enforcement activities related to retail marijuana,  to fund youth services, especially those that prevent use of marijuana, and  to mitigate other impacts that the cultivation, testing, sale, consumption, or regulation of retail marijuana has on services provided by an eligible local government.

The General Assembly may annually appropriate money from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund or the Proposition AA Refund Account for these grants. Any unexpended and unencumbered money from an appropriation remains available in the following year without further appropriation.

The General Assembly has annually appropriated $1,000,000 per year for this program since FY 2015- 16; this funding supports grants as well as program administration. In response to a staff request, the Department provided the following detail concerning grant awards to date.

Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program: FY 2015-16 through FY 2017-18

Available July 1, 2015 $ 1,000,000 FY 15/16 Total Dollars Awarded in June 2017 Available through June 30, 2017 Amount Awarded Jun-2016 MJ 16-001 - Otero County Equipment, Consulting Services $ 128,647 MJ 16-008 - City of Englewood Police Department Equipment $ 12,436 MJ 16-009 - City of Grand Junction Equipment $ 4,040 MJ 16-011 - City of Arvada Police Department Equipment, Training $ 27,500 MJ 16-013 - City of Longmont Youth programs, Facility Remodel $ 567,540 MJ 16-014 - City of Sterling Equipment $ 26,397 MJ 16-015 - Jefferson County SD Consulting $ 219,200 Total $ 985,760 $ 14,240 Balance unawarded

FY 16/17 Total Dollars Available $ 14,240 Balance unawarded FY 15/16 Award to Jefferson County returned to DOLA on 6/19/17 $ 219,200 Total $ 233,440 Available for new awards in 16/17

$1,000,000 was taken back as unspent because of the "roll-over" wording determination by the State Controller resulting in the 16/17 funds being used to cover 15/16 awards

FY 17/18 Awards funded with FY 16/17 balance (June 2017) * Jun-2017 MJ 17-001 Las Animas County Law Enforcement Equipment 2017 $ 13,400 MJ 17-002 Arvada Police Department Equipment 2017 $ 43,855 MJ 17-003 Otero County Law Enforcement Equipment, Training & Consulting 2017 $ 83,236 $ 140,491 Total $ 92,949 Available for new awards in 17/18

FY 17/18 Total Dollars Available July 1, 2017 $ 1,000,000 Balance (unspent) from FY 16/17 ** $ 92,949 This funding expires June 30, 2018 Total FY 16/17 and 17/18 Total Dollars Available $ 1,092,949 Available for new awards in 17/18

Grants totaling $907,051 have been paid out to date. The Department indicates that the Division collaborated with potential stakeholders during the second grant cycle. Despite these efforts, the Division received only three applications for FY 2017-18 and a total of $140,491 was obligated. Please

30-Nov-2017 10 Local Affairs - brf

note that the full amount that has been obligated will be paid out of the funding that was appropriated for FY 2016-17, so it appears that none of the FY 2017-18 appropriation will be utilized unless another grant cycle is opened.

HOUSE BILL 17-1221 – GRAY AND BLACK MARKET MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM House Bill 17-1221 created the Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program to provide grants to local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys to cover costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of unlicensed and illegal marijuana cultivation or distribution operations. The Division of Local Government is required to prioritize grants to provide necessary financial assistance to local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys in rural areas2 and to support the investigation and prosecution of unlicensed and illegal operations that are large-scale, involve organized crime, or divert marijuana outside of Colorado.

The Program is supported by annual appropriations from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF). Any unexpended and unencumbered money from an appropriation remains available for expenditure by the Division in the next fiscal year without further appropriation. The act included an appropriation of $5,945,392 cash funds from the MTCF for FY 2017-18 to cover administrative expenses and provide grants.

The first application cycle for the Program opened in mid-August and closed on October 31, 2017. Fifteen applications were received for nearly $1 million. The Department plans to open and close grant cycles every three months to meet the needs of local governments who have asked for funding as soon as expenditures occur and to ensure the statutory priorities in grant making are reflected in awards (i.e., rural priority is reflected in application cycles).

DOLA REQUEST #2 - ELIMINATE MARIJUANA IMPACT GRANT PROGRAM The Department requests an elimination of funding for the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program, resulting in a reduction of $1,120,636 cash funds from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund and a reduction of 1.0 FTE for FY 2018-19. The Department indicates that the General Assembly could simply exclude funding for this program in the FY 2018-19 Long Bill, and the General Assembly could also choose to introduce legislation to repeal the program. Absent the repeal of this program, the FY 2017-18 appropriation will remain available through June 30, 2019.

The Department recommends discontinuing funding for this program in FY 2018-19 due to the minimal demand for grants. The Department indicates that a number of other state agencies administer programs that address specific impacts of marijuana legalization in Colorado. In addition, the largest demand for grants has pertained to the needs of local law enforcement. The newly created Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program better meets the needs for law enforcement efforts related to marijuana legalization. While the two grant programs serve different populations, the new grant program meets the needs of more jurisdictions – particularly in rural areas – because it has more funding ($6.0 million) and a statutory mission with greater focus on the demands

2 A rural area is defined as a county with a population of less than 200,000 people or a municipality with a population of less than 30,000 people that is located 10 miles or more from a municipality with a population of more than 50,000 people.

30-Nov-2017 11 Local Affairs - brf

of law enforcement in relation to large-scale cultivation sites and the exploitation of marijuana legalization in Colorado by criminal organizations.

The Department believes that the demand for grants through the Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program will exceed available funds, and it considered requesting that the $1.0 million be used to expand available funding. However, the Department cannot confirm this assumption until the first grant cycle is complete.

Please note that the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program has been supported by 2.0 FTE. The Department’s estimate of the staffing required to support the new grant program was predicated on the existence of these staff. If the Department’s proposal to eliminate the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program is approved, it proposes that the Program Manager remain to oversee and develop the Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program. The Department expects it to take a full year to build the new program and teach local governments how to document and request funding for eligible impacts, and it could take three to five years to adequately quantify demand and determine if the amount of available grants program is sized appropriately. The Department provided the following descriptions of positions in both grant programs:

Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program For FY 2015-16, 1.0 FTE General Professional IV (now titled Community and Economic Development Specialist IV) was funded to serve as a program manager and 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I was added for FY 2016-17. Duties of these two positions include the following:  Create the grant management/administration infrastructure and prepare grant contract templates  Publicize the program including outreach, development of documents, and travel to rural communities  Manage contracts and payments to grantees  Analyze the program and report out to the legislature and Department  Manage grant-making requirements/policies (Annually, the eligibility of local governments for the Impact program revises after elections regarding the sale of retail marijuana take place.)

Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program House Bill 17-1221 provided funding for 1.0 FTE Community and Economic Development Specialist III to serve as a program coordinator and 0.5 FTE Accounting Tech I. Duties of these positions include the following:  Create the grant management/administration infrastructure and prepare grant contract templates  Publicize the program including outreach, development of documents, and travel to rural communities  Manage contracts and payments to grantees  Analyze the program and report out to the legislature and Department  Manage annual grant-making policy requirements  Manage all accounting services related to grant contracting (CORE budget set-up for each local government applicant and state required grant procurement system management)  Maintenance of payments  Account audit management

30-Nov-2017 12 Local Affairs - brf

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Committee consider introducing legislation to repeal the Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program, effective June 30, 2018. Staff believes this is a reasonable recommendation given the limited interest in the program as expressed through grant applications to date and the availability of funding for critical local law enforcement activities through the new Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program. To the extent that local governments identify a need for youth prevention and other services to mitigate impacts related to the legalization of retail marijuana, there are other state agencies that administer programs that may address these needs. Staff has listed below the most relevant programs, by state agency, along with the associated appropriations for FY 2017-18.

Department of Education  School Health Professionals Grant Program ($11.9 million from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund or MTCF)  Marijuana education materials resource bank ($47,000 from the MTCF)

Department of Human Services  Programs to fund service alternatives to placing youth in a correctional facility, known as S.B. 91- 094 programs ($15.0 million, including $2.0 million from the MTCF)  Increasing access to effective substance use disorder services, pursuant to S.B. 16-202 ($12.1 million from the MTCF)  Tony Grampsas Youth Services Program ($9.9 million, including $2.3 million from the MTCF)

Department of Public Health and Environment  Substance abuse prevention grants ($9.0 million from the MTCF)  Marijuana public education campaign ($4.6 million from the MTCF)

Department of Public Safety  Juvenile diversion programs ($1.6 million, including $400,000 from the MTCF)

30-Nov-2017 13 Local Affairs - brf

ISSUE: MOFFAT TUNNEL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

This issue brief discusses a requested report concerning the Department’s role related to the Moffat train tunnel and potential State liability exposure.

SUMMARY

 In 1922, the General Assembly authorized creation of a special taxing district, the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, to construct both a train tunnel and a parallel water tunnel that run 6.2 miles under the Continental Divide. In the late 1990s, the General Assembly dissolved the District’s elected commission and transferred control of the District’s assets to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The water tunnel was sold to the Denver Water Board in 1998.

 In response to some potential concerns raised by Joint Budget Committee staff related to DOLA’s administrative authority and role related to the Moffat train tunnel, the Committee requested that DOLA prepare a report to determine whether the State should consider taking any administrative or legislative action.

 With the assistance of the Attorney General’s Office, DOLA submitted a report as requested. The report identifies provisions in the current contract with Union Pacific Railroad that could expose the District to substantial liability. In light of these potential liabilities, the report indicates that DOLA will begin the process of researching insurance coverage options that could mitigate the District’s liability exposure.

 While the District’s contracts with Union Pacific and Century Link are clear about their maintenance responsibilities, these contracts do not specifically address assuring the structural integrity of the Moffat tunnel or even paying for such analysis. DOLA does not have any experts on staff who could attest to the structural soundness or deficiencies of Moffat Tunnel.

 At this time, DOLA does not recommend any statutory or administrative changes related to the District or its associated assets. DOLA does not have any current plans to sell the District’s assets or to renegotiate the current lease agreements with Union Pacific Railroad or Century Link. If the General Assembly is genuinely interested in selling these assets, DOLA would need to consult with an engineering firm familiar with railroad assets to determine the steps required to organize those assets for sale.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Committee ask DOLA and representatives from the Attorney General’s Office to discuss the report findings and potential short-term actions that may be reasonable and necessary to mitigate the State’s liability exposure.

30-Nov-2017 14 Local Affairs - brf

DISCUSSION

HISTORY In 1922, the General Assembly authorized creation of the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District3, a special taxing district consisting of the City and County of Denver, Grand, Moffat, and Routt counties, and portions of five other counties, to fund construction of train and water tunnels. The “Moffat Tunnel” includes a train tunnel and a parallel water tunnel that run 6.2 miles under the Continental Divide between Rollinsville and Winter Park. The Moffat Tunnel is more than three times the length of the Eisenhower Tunnel. The bonds associated with the construction were paid off in 1983.

The Moffat Tunnel Commission, an elected body that previously controlled the Improvement District, was dissolved by the General Assembly in 1997, following efforts by Commissioners to increase payments from users. The administration of the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District was transferred to the State. Prior to this, the land on which the Winter Park Resort operates was sold to the resort. In 1998, the water tunnel that runs alongside the train tunnel was sold to the Denver Water Board. Although statute suggests that the General Assembly anticipated that the train tunnel would also be sold, it was not.

CURRENT OPERATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Freight trains, passenger trains, and fiber optic cables continue to run through the train tunnel bore. Statute specifies that tunnel users are responsible for maintenance and improvements at their sole cost, and the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) appears to have no involvement in Tunnel operations. However, DOLA has administrative authority for the Improvement District in statute, with rights to enter into contracts and to effect sale of the property.

There are currently two lessees, Union Pacific Railroad and Century Link (formerly Qwest). The leases require Union Pacific to pay the District $12,000 per year and Century Link to pay $14,659 per year. The current Union Pacific lease ends in 2025 with a right to renew and Century Link’s current lease ends in 2091 with a right to renew. Lease payments are credited to the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund. Pursuant to Sections 32-8-124.7 and 126. C.R.S., revenue from the property is to be distributed to the nine Improvement District counties, after the Department has set aside sufficient revenue for administrative costs.

Over the last seven fiscal years (FY 2010-11 through FY 2016-17), DOLA expenditures from the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund have ranged from $0 and $71. As of June 30, 2017, DOLA reports a Fund balance of $245,020. Annual lease payment revenues and interest earnings totaled $29,258 in FY 2016- 17. The General Assembly transferred $86,758 from the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund to the General Fund in 2009, but has not made any transfers since that time.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Last Spring, Joint Budget Committee staff identified some potential concerns related to DOLA’s administrative authority and role related to the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District and the Moffat train tunnel. Staff noted that DOLA has taken no action related to the Tunnel for many years and some of the institutional knowledge about DOLA’s role related to the Tunnel appears to have been lost. Given that the current Union Pacific lease expires in 2025 and current statute contemplates the

3 See Section 32-8-101 through 126, C.R.S.

30-Nov-2017 15 Local Affairs - brf

sale of this asset, staff recommended a “check-in” on the legal and administrative structure related to the Tunnel to evaluate whether sale of the Tunnel is a viable option and whether such a sale would be in the long-term interest of the State. The Joint Budget Committee included the following request for information in its annual letter for the Governor to determine whether any administrative or legislative steps should be considered related to the Tunnel:

DOLA, Request for Information #1: Department of Local Affairs, Executive Director’s Office, Moffat Tunnel Improvement District – The Department is requested to submit a report by October 1, 2017, concerning the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District. The report should address: (1) What land/property is owned by the Improvement District? (2) What are the State and Improvement District’s legal and functional responsibilities for the Tunnel and any related lands versus that of other entities? (3) Does Union Pacific or another entity have legal responsibility for ensuring the structural soundness and safety of the Tunnel? (4) Does the State or should the State or the Improvement District have any related responsibility for ensuring the Tunnel’s soundness, given its length and age? (5) Does the State anticipate again attempting to sell the Tunnel or to renegotiate lease agreements and, if so, is this anticipated to occur in 2025 or at another time? (6) What steps are likely to be required prior to sale or renegotiation of lease amounts (e.g., legal, engineering, consultation with other State and local entities)? (7) How does the Department propose to use money accumulating in the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund? How much is likely to be required and when? (8) Does the Department recommend any statutory or administrative changes related to the Tunnel or the Improvement District?

The Department submitted the report as requested. Staff has provided a summary and excerpts from the report below.

LEASE AGREEMENTS AND DOLA ROLE The lease agreement with Union Pacific requires that they keep the “tunnel insured against loss or damage by fire for the full insurable value”. Union Pacific submits a certificate of property insurance annually with every lease payment. Per the lease agreement with CenturyLink, they “shall procure and maintain Comprehensive General Liability insurance…for a limit not less than $10 million…and shall also…maintain Automobile Liability insurance…for not less than $1 million”. CenturyLink also submits certificate of property insurance annually with every lease payment.

DOLA is the custodian and has administrative authority over the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, which owns the Moffat Tunnel “train tunnel”. Pursuant to Section 32-8-103 (1), C.R.S., “the district was, until February 1, 1998, managed and controlled by a board of five members known as the ‘Moffat tunnel commission’.” With adoption of S.B. 96-233, the Department assumed the powers of the Board and shall have the powers and duties set forth in Sections 32-8-107 and 32-8-124, C.R.S., with respect to the district and its properties. The powers delegated to the Department on behalf of the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District are listed in Section 32-8-107, C.R.S.

DOLA RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Staff has excerpted DOLA’s responses to the specific questions listed in the Request for Information below. DOLA noted that portions of these responses are excerpted or paraphrased from a liability analysis provided by the Attorney General’s Office in a confidential memorandum dated September 12, 2017.

30-Nov-2017 16 Local Affairs - brf

1. What land/property is owned by the Improvement District? Pursuant to definitions delineated in Section 32-8-101.5, C.R.S., the District owns the Moffat Tunnel, its approaches, and equipment. The Department, on behalf of the District, is empowered by statute to preserve and maintain the Tunnel or to contract with other parties to preserve and maintain the tunnel.

2. What are the State and Improvement District’s legal and functional responsibility for the Tunnel and any related land versus that of other entities? Legal Responsibilities: The District was created by statute in 1922 to finance construction of the Moffat Tunnel. By 1998, the legislature had dissolved the District’s elected commission and transferred control of the District’s assets including the tunnel to the Department. The District is a legal entity that can sue or defend in all actions, suits, or proceedings. The District’s area includes territory within the following nine Colorado counties: Adams, Boulder, Denver, Eagle, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Moffat, and Routt. While the District has territorial limits, the counties within which the District lies are not members of the District.

There are two provisions in the current contract with the Railroad that could expose the Improvement District to substantial liability. First, this contract contains noteworthy provisions about who pays for tunnel repairs in the event of an ‘unforeseeable’ catastrophic event. The District has an obligation to pay ‘in the first instance’ for damage to the tunnel caused by acts of God, or by an ‘unforeseen catastrophe’ or ‘unusual accident’ that cannot be foreseen ‘by reasonable inspection, investigation and observation’ and that renders the tunnel unfit for railroad use for 30 days or more.

While the Railroad is required to repay the Improvement District for tunnel repairs up to $1 million, the Improvement District is wholly responsible for any repairs exceeding $1 million. Additionally, if the District fails to repair the tunnel, the Railroad has the right to make the repairs and bill the District for these costs plus interest of six percent. Essentially, regardless of the nature of any catastrophic event, it would be in the Railroad’s interest to claim that the disaster could not have been anticipated through reasonable inspection.

Second, the contract provision regarding fire damage requires the Railroad to insure the tunnel structures and equipment against loss due to fire for their ‘full insurable value’. So the Railroad is responsible for replacement or repair only to the extent of the insurance proceeds. It is important to note that the ‘insurable value’ of property is not necessarily the equivalent to replacement cost. If the Railroad’s insurance reimbursement proceeds are inadequate to cover the replacement of structures or equipment lost due to fire, the District could be held responsible to make up the difference if repairs were required to ensure that the Railroad had full enjoyment and use of the tunnel as stipulated in the contract.

Functional Responsibilities: By contract, the District has no duty to maintain the Moffat Tunnel. Since 1926, as stipulated in a leasing agreement, the operating railroad will maintain the approaches, equipment, and ventilation system within the tunnel. This includes assuring the tunnel is ‘in as good order and condition as may be necessary to protect the railroad tunnel from caving or from becoming in such condition that the

30-Nov-2017 17 Local Affairs - brf

tunnel cannot be properly or safely operated.’ Additionally, the District leases the tunnel for telecom use and the telecom user is responsible for maintaining, to the extent of their use, the tunnel, its approaches, and equipment.

3. Does Union Pacific or another entity have legal responsibility for ensuring the structural soundness and safety of the tunnel? The Railroad does have legal responsibility to ensure safety of the tunnel, but not necessarily to ensure its structural soundness. Please see explanation of functional responsibilities provided in response to question 2.

4. Does the State or should the State or the Improvement District have any related responsibility for ensuring the tunnel’s soundness, given its length and age? Under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), the District is immune from negligence claims. There is no waiver of immunity for the ownership of a railroad tunnel, or for the negligent operation, maintenance, or construction of a railroad tunnel.

The Department has no basis to make any statements about whether the State or the Improvement District should have any responsibility regarding the tunnel’s soundness. While the District’s contracts with the Railroad and Century Link are clear about their maintenance responsibilities, these contracts do not specifically address assuring the structural integrity of the Moffat Tunnel or even paying for such analysis. The Department does not have any experts on staff who could attest to the structural soundness or deficiencies of Moffat Tunnel.

5. Does the State anticipate again attempting to sell the Tunnel or renegotiate lease agreements and, if so, is this anticipated to occur in 2025 or at another time? The Department does not have any current plans to sell the assets of the Improvement District. The same is true regarding renegotiation of the current lease agreements with Union Pacific Railroad or Century Link.

6. What steps are likely to be required prior to sale or renegotiation of lease amounts (e.g., legal, engineering, consultation with other State and local entities)? Since no plans to sell the assets of the Improvement District are pending, the Department does not specifically know the steps required to organize those assets for sale. The Attorney General’s Office has indicated that such questions are beyond the expertise of its legal staff and that an engineering firm familiar with railroad assets would be the recommended option for answering such questions. Such consultation would likely provide insight into which other parties to engage in determining other considerations for selling the Improvement District’s assets. However, the Department would not pursue consultation with an engineering firm or other relevant parties unless the General Assembly expressed a genuine interest in selling these assets.

7. How does the Department propose to use money accumulating in the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund? How much is likely to be required and when? As discussed in the response to question 2, the lease with the Railroad limits its total liability and those damages caused by acts of God, an ‘unforeseen catastrophe’ or ‘unusual accident’. The District must pay the first $1 million of any needed repairs should the railroad shut down for an extended period.

30-Nov-2017 18 Local Affairs - brf

While the railroad would repay the Improvement District for the first $1 million, any additional costs are the responsibility of the District. In light of these potential liabilities, the Department is going to begin the process of researching insurance coverage options that could mitigate the District’s liability exposure for such acts of God, ‘unforeseen catastrophes’ or ‘unusual accidents’.

For many years, the Department proportionally distributed the lease proceeds that accrued in the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund to each of the nine counties in which the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District resides. In 2008, the Department suspended these distributions in anticipation of engaging the appropriate consultants to package the Improvement District’s assets for sale. However, with the turnover in the Department’s executive management team over the last several years, this has never been pursued. The suspension of distribution payments also seems sensible considering the District’s aforementioned liability for damages caused by acts of God, ‘unforeseen catastrophes’, or ‘unusual accidents’.

8. Does the Department recommend any statutory or administrative changes related to the Tunnel or the Improvement District? At this time, the Department doesn’t recommend any statutory or administrative changes related to the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District or its associated assets.

30-Nov-2017 19 Local Affairs - brf

ISSUE: EVALUATION OF FORT LYON PROGRAM

This issue brief summarizes the preliminary findings of a longitudinal evaluation of the Fort Lyon Supportive Residential Community Program.

SUMMARY

 The Joint Budget Committee sponsored H.B. 16-1411, which authorized the State Auditor to contract with an independent third party to conduct a longitudinal evaluation of the Fort Lyon program. The preliminary findings report was due to the State Auditor by August 1, 2017, and a final report is due by August 1, 2018.

 The State Auditor contracted with Illuminate Evaluation Services, LLC to conduct the longitudinal evaluation. The contractor issued a preliminary report in August 2017, and the report was released in September 2017 following a presentation to the Legislative Audit Committee.

 Staff has excerpted below the “key initial results” highlighted in the preliminary report, and summarized the information included in each chapter of the report.

DISCUSSION

HOUSE BILL 16-1411 The Joint Budget Committee sponsored legislation in 2016 to authorize a longitudinal evaluation of the Fort Lyon program, a supportive residential community for individuals who are homeless4. This program was authorized and funded by S.B. 13-210, and it provides transitional housing and supportive services to homeless and at-risk individuals across Colorado. The program is located on the historic Fort Lyon campus in the rural town of Las Animas; this facility was previously the Fort Lyon Veterans Administration Hospital (from 1922 to 2001) and a state prison (decommissioned in 2012).

The Department of Local Affairs’ Division of Housing is responsible for managing the program. The Division contracts with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to administer the program’s residential and supportive services, and with Bent County for facility maintenance and operations. The program is currently supported by an appropriation of $4,989,637 General Fund, which includes $2.6 million for the contract with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, $2.1 million for the contract with Bent county, and the remainder for the Division of Housing for oversight and contingencies. Although the cost of the program has not changed significantly, prior to FY 2016-17 a portion was funded with custodial funds from the 2012 Mortgage Servicing Settlement.

The act authorized the State Auditor to contract for the study with an independent third party, with the concurrence of the Division of Housing. The act also created the Fort Lyon Study Advisory Committee, consisting of at least three people appointed by the Director of the Division of Housing who are experts in evaluating programs for people who are homeless. The Advisory Committee assisted the State Auditor regarding the request for proposals process, and assists the Auditor and

4 See Sections 24-32-724 and 725, C.R.S.

30-Nov-2017 20 Local Affairs - brf

Division in evaluating the contractor's progress on the study. The contractor is required to design the study to include a pre- and post-evaluation of the program, with one to two years prior to and after participants' time in the program and to the extent possible to use a matched comparison group. The contractor may use various data sources and comparable studies in conducting the analysis.

The study must describe:  the direct and indirect cost of the program;  program outcomes; and  the benefits of the program to the State and other governmental and publicly-supported entities.

The study must compare these costs, benefits, and outcomes with providing no services and with the costs, benefits, and outcomes for other programs serving a similar client population and with similar goals.

As introduced, H.B. 16-1411 would have repealed statutory provisions creating the Fort Lyon Supportive Residential Community Program effective July 1, 2019. As passed, the act simply includes language stating that the General Assembly may enact legislation to repeal the Program following its review of the longitudinal study.

The preliminary findings report was due to the State Auditor by August 1, 2017, and a final report is due by August 1, 2018. The act included an appropriation of $200,000 General Fund to the Legislative Department for FY 2017-18 for the Office of the State Auditor to contract for the study and $11,875 General Fund to the Department of Corrections for contract services related to compiling data for the study. Unspent amounts remain available for expenditure in FY 2017-18.

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT The State Auditor contracted with Illuminate Evaluation Services, LLC, to conduct the longitudinal evaluation. A preliminary report was issued in August 2017 and released in September 2017 following a presentation to the Legislative Audit Committee5. Staff has excerpted below the “key initial results” highlighted in the report, and summarized the information included in the six chapters of the report.

KEY INITIAL RESULTS  The average annual per participant cost of the Fort Lyon Supportive Residential Community Program (Fort Lyon Program) from Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016, was about $18,000 based on a 250-person capacity.  Of the 600 participants exiting the Fort Lyon Program as of December 13, 2016, 39.7 percent completed the Program by meeting their goals (234 of 590 with complete data) and 38.6 percent exited to permanent housing (200 of 518 with complete data).  Costs per participant decreased 27 percent for physical and behavioral health care and 66 percent for the judicial system (i.e., incarceration and probation) from pre-enrollment in the Fort Lyon Program to post-enrollment in the Program for participants who had 1-year of post-enrollment data and who received Medicaid both pre- and post-enrollment. These results are consistent with the results of cost studies conducted of other similar programs, although the cost reduction at Fort Lyon is less than for other programs.

5 This report can be accessed at: http://leg.colorado.gov/audits/evaluation-fort-lyon-supportive-residential-community- preliminary-report.

30-Nov-2017 21 Local Affairs - brf

 The more days a participant stays in the Fort Lyon Program, the greater the odds of completing the Program and exiting to permanent housing. In contrast, a participant’s drug and alcohol use history, behavioral health concerns, and participation in vocational, educational, or employment programs were not significant predictors of completing the Program or exiting to permanent housing.  Participants reported significant improvements in their levels of anxiety, depression, and overall quality of life after entering the Fort Lyon Program.  A benefit cost analysis performed for the Bent County Development Foundation on the Fort Lyon Program estimated that economic activity at Fort Lyon generated 119 jobs and approximately $10.3 million of financial activity in the Bent County area in 2015- 2016.  Of the three comparison programs reviewed, the Fort Lyon Program had the lowest costs, and a similar average length of stay as two of the three programs.

CHAPTER 1: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION An annual federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report based on point-in-time estimates of the number of people who are literally homeless6 indicates that 10,550 people in Colorado were homeless in 2016. As detailed in Exhibit 1.3 (excerpted from the preliminary report), of this total, 7,611 (72.1 percent) were sheltered and 2,939 were unsheltered (e.g., their primary residence is the street, a vehicle, a park, etc.). The largest subpopulation of homeless individuals in Colorado is the “chronically homeless” (i.e., they have been literally homeless for at least 12 months). Within this subpopulation, only 51.9 percent were sheltered.

The staff at Colorado Coalition for the Homeless that administer the Program includes a four-member team that provides onsite leadership and 32 additional staff members both on- and off-site. In 2016, this support staff included: 11 case managers, four administrative staff, four security staff, four kitchen staff, three peer mentors, three drivers, an outcomes specialist, a nurse case manager, and a housekeeping staff person. The Division of Housing’s Fort Lyon Program Manager visits monthly for

6 “Literal homelessness’ includes people who are living in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g., a car), emergency shelter, transitional housing, or hotels paid by a government or charitable organization.

30-Nov-2017 22 Local Affairs - brf

a site visit to meet with program leaders and participants and to attend special events. For 2016, the contract between the Division of Housing and the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless set program participation levels at 250 on average each month, with up to a ten percent vacancy rate.

Participants are referred by a homelessness service organization or health care provider that will follow up with that individual after he or she leaves the program. Client participation is entirely voluntary and cannot be court-ordered. Program entrance requirements are:

1 Be homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. 2 Be at least 21 years or older and a resident of Colorado. 3 Have a documented substance use disorder with previous failed attempts at treatment and express a strong motivation and desire to change. 4 Be detoxed prior to program entry – meeting the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Level I Detox Criteria. (The ASAM criteria provide guidelines for placement, continued stay and transfer/discharge of patients with addiction and co-occurring problems.) 5 If there is a mental health diagnosis, participants must have stable symptoms and have a 30-day supply of all prescription medications at the time of transportation to the Fort Lyon campus. 6 If there are chronic health conditions, participants must be medically cleared to enter the Program and have a 30-day supply of any required medication. 7 Must not have open warrants or cases, be a registered sex offender, or have a history of sexual offenses or recent violent offenses. 8 Must agree to live in a communal living environment and comply with the Resident Handbook and Fort Lyon Policies and Procedures.

Following an intake process designed to screen for readiness, participants are scheduled for the next available opening on a van to Fort Lyon (usually 14 to 30 days out).

Program participants receive housing, food, and access to a variety of supportive services, with a focus on substance use and its role in chronic homelessness. The Program has zero tolerance substance abuse and violent behavior policies. The Program is operated using three key service models:  Trauma informed care, which recognizes that homelessness may be both the cause and result of trauma  Peer support, which incorporates social support for recovery  On-demand transitional recovery housing that is voluntary, driven by client choice, entails minimal service requirements, and is accessible without an extensive wait period

On-site services include case management, vocational and educational training, support groups, and peer mentoring. Participants can access additional resources through partner programs or independently in local communities (e.g., attending church, accessing social services, attending community college courses, etc.). The Fort Lyon Health Clinic, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resource and Service Administration-funded Health Care for the Homeless Clinic, which provides integrated primary and behavioral health services for the five-county region.

The Program is designed as a two-year program, and the maximum allowable length of participation is 36 months. For the first 30 days, participants are encouraged to focus on rest, becoming physically

30-Nov-2017 23 Local Affairs - brf

healthy, and obtaining deferred medical treatment. They are required to attend the New Beginnings education program and to attend a morning community meeting three days a week; they are not allowed to leave campus. After 30 days, participants may leave the campus during the day and after 90 days may request an overnight pass. Participants self-determine when they have completed the program, using their progress in meeting their goals and outcomes as a guide.

Case managers and other Program staff identify paperwork, credentials, and benefit applications that each participant needs. Other personnel assist participants in finding transitional or permanent supportive housing. Upon leaving, a participant may also become part of Friends of Fort Lyon, a support network of alumni that provides continued recover and social support.

Between September 2013 when the Program opened and December 13, 2016, the Program served 798 individuals. The majority of participants are white males about 50 years of age; about one in five are veterans, and three in five self-report having a physical disability, chronic health condition, or behavioral health problem. The average length of stay, per admission, is 220 days; nearly half of admissions lasted from 31 to 180 days. Exhibit 1.8 table details the number of Program admissions, exits, and completions each calendar year.

Exhibit 1.10 summarizes the housing status of participants prior to enrollment and at exit from the Program.

30-Nov-2017 24 Local Affairs - brf

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY To align with the statutory objectives of this evaluation, the contractor studied outcomes for participants during the time they were enrolled in the Program and collected both quantitative and qualitative data. For the cost analysis, the contractor analyzed data over a two and four-year period for the two groups. The contractor used a variety of data sources, including:  reports and literature about other similar programs;  data from the Departments of Local Affairs, Health Care Policy and Financing, Human Services, and Corrections, the Judicial Department, and Colorado Coalition for the Homeless;  interviews and focus groups with Fort Lyon Program staff and both current and past participants;  interviews with staff and participants from other similar facilities; and  a review of existing reports and data pertaining to the Program.

The final report will build on initial findings and include additional information on Program implementation and participant outcomes. The final report will also include an evaluation of a comparison group that is similar to Fort Lyon participants, including both those who have received services from other programs and those who have not received any services. This information will be used to compare Fort Lyon participant outcomes with those for a similar group of individuals experiencing homelessness.

30-Nov-2017 25 Local Affairs - brf

CHAPTER 3: FORT LYON COSTS AND BENEFITS Exhibit 3.1 summarizes the available funds and expenses for the Fort Lyon Program for the first three fiscal years. The report notes that expenditures are higher than indicated below because participants assist with food service, housekeeping, and grounds and facility maintenance (resulting in annual cost savings of about $785,000 annually). The report also notes that in the absence of the Fort Lyon Program, the State would incur an estimated $897,000 annually for maintenance and operations (e.g., utilities, security, and light maintenance). The report also includes information about improvements that have been made to the facility since 2013, as well as repairs and improvements that will be needed in the next five to ten years.

To measure pre-enrollment and post-enrollment savings for community services, the contractor uses the date on which a participant obtains housing as the beginning of the post-period, rather than the Program exit date. The analysis utilized two study groups: one group with at least one year of available post-enrollment data, and a second subset of that group with at least two years of post-enrollment data. For each group, the contractor compared pre- and post-enrollment costs related to physical and behavioral health care, incarceration, and probation. The initial analysis does not include costs related to jails, shelters, or meal services. The contractor only used data for participants who were eligible for Medicaid both before and after enrollment to avoid underestimating pre-enrollment medical costs.

With respect to medical and behavioral health care costs, the analysis showed that post-enrollment costs for the first study group were $1,254,000 (27 percent) lower than pre-enrollment. However, for the subset of this population that had at least two years of post-enrollment data, the analysis showed that post-enrollment costs were $346,000 (12 percent) higher. The contractor indicates that if this trend continues, it will further investigate the possible reasons for this increase.

30-Nov-2017 26 Local Affairs - brf

The report reveals similar findings with respect to probation and incarceration costs. Costs for the first study group decreased by $71,000 (66 percent), but for the subset of this group with at least two years of post-enrollment data the costs increased by $2,000 (two percent).

The report also discusses the benefits for individual participants, as well as the regional economic impact of the program.

CHAPTER 4: FORT LYON OUTCOMES The Fort Lyon program staff identify two major outcomes from participation in the Program. First, whether the participant completes the Program (i.e., does the participant meets their goals as identified in his or her Goals and Outcomes Plan). Second, whether the participant exits the Program to permanent housing. For these two outcomes, the report concludes the following:  About 40 percent of participants exiting the Program were determined to have completed the Program (234 of the 590 participants for whom Fort Lyon had completion data).  About 39 percent of participants exiting the Program exited to permanent housing (200 of the 518 participants for whom Fort Lyon had housing data), and another 12 percent exited to transitional housing.  Overall, the 600 participants stayed an average of 242 days (approximately eight months), which is far less than the maximum time allowed of three years.

The report concluded that the biggest predictor of whether a participant completes the Program or exits to permanent housing is the length of time in the Program. In contrast, a participant’s drug and alcohol use history, behavioral health concerns, and participation in vocational, educational, or employment programs were not significant predictors of completing the Program or exiting to permanent housing. The length of time in the Program also had a statistically significant impact on alcohol or drug use. Finally, participants reported significant improvements in their levels of anxiety, depression, and overall quality of life after entering the Program.

CHAPTER 5: COMPARISON TO OTHER SIMILAR PROGRAMS The contractor indicates that the Fort Lyon Program is unique in its approach to recovery-oriented transitional housing for individuals who are homeless, making it difficult to make direct program-to- program comparisons. Fort Lyon addresses both homelessness and substance addiction, while other programs focus on one or the other. The contractor did not compare Fort Lyon to Housing First programs, because these programs do not require sobriety and do not offer treatment or educational, vocational, or life skills services. The contractor identified three programs for purposes of cross- program comparisons:  Harvest Farm New Life Program (a program serving adult men in Fort Collins)  Sobriety House (a residential treatment center serving men and women near Denver)  Central City Concern (a program in Portland, Oregon to serve adults and families who are impacted by homelessness, poverty, and addiction)

Exhibit 5.1 identifies similarities and differences between these three programs and the Fort Lyon Program.

30-Nov-2017 27 Local Affairs - brf

The average length of stay at Fort Lyon, Harvest Farm, and Central City Concern is similar (220, 210, and 240 days, respectively), and the average cost per participant per year are similar for Fort Lyon and Central City Concern ($18,000 and $19,788, respectively).

The report also includes a summary of cost studies for programs that address homelessness or homelessness and substance abuse. Comparisons are challenging due to differences in population demographics and size, location, study design, data analyzed, and length of the study. With the exception of Albuquerque’s Heading Home Initiative, all studies occurred prior to Medicaid expansion. Exhibit 5.3 includes a comparison of the initial Fort Lyon Program cost savings results to four other programs. The report notes that the four other studies included different data, including local data, which was not included in the Fort Lyon study.

30-Nov-2017 28 Local Affairs - brf

CHAPTER 6: ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION Based on a review of literature concerning best practices for supporting people with housing instability and on eliminating homelessness, the report identifies four best practices currently in use at the Fort Lyon Program:  Dual focus on addiction and housing  Trauma-informed care approach  Peer mentoring  Programmatic flexibility and/or client choice

The report also identifies three best practices that are under development at the Fort Lyon Program:  Comprehensive and integrated services. Through the Fort Lyon Program and its partners, participants have access to a range of medical and psychological services, as well as support groups for recovery from addiction. While the Fort Lyon Program does not provide comprehensive services (e.g., formal behavioral health treatment, full medical services) as part of the Program, it seeks to integrate these services on an individual basis for each client by identifying participants’ needs through case management and providing referrals, contacts, and transportation for participants to obtain the needed services. Over time, staff members have been developing networks to ensure Fort Lyon participants have access to needed services.

 Coordinated assessment and outreach systems to support access. Coordinated assessment systems are necessary to identify, refer, and assess individuals who may benefit from a particular program. Implementing effective coordinated systems requires collaboration and efficient communication among agencies, as well as effective assessment tools and procedures. From the outset, Department of Local Affairs and Fort Lyon Program staff have sought to establish procedures that ensure the best match between participants and the Program, and assessment and outreach processes are still under development.

 Use of data. Successful programs typically use data broadly, from identification of high utilizers, to making evidence-based decisions for individuals and the program, to monitoring outcomes. The

30-Nov-2017 29 Local Affairs - brf

Fort Lyon Program staff meet quarterly to review data reports. According to staff members, these reports allow them to make targeted changes in the Program and monitor the impact of those changes. For the purposes of the evaluation, the contractor collected data from a variety of other organizations, such as the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the Department of Human Services’ Office of Behavioral Health, the Department of Corrections, and the Judicial Branch. As data restrictions allow, it may be useful for Fort Lyon Program staff to develop similar agreements to identify individuals who are homeless and high utilizers of costly public services, and to monitor both short- and long-term Program outcomes.

30-Nov-2017 30 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (1) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE The Executive Director's Office is responsible for the management and administration of the Department, including accounting, budgeting, human resources, and other miscellaneous functions statutorily assigned to the Department such as administration of the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District. Cash fund sources include the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund, the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund, and various other cash fund sources that support the other divisions. Reappropriated fund sources include transfers from the Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements line item in the Division of Local Government and indirect cost recoveries. Personal Services 1,352,634 1,375,088 1,382,981 1,432,014 FTE 15.5 13.5 14.2 14.2 General Fund 0 0 0 141,769 Reappropriated Funds 1,352,634 1,375,088 1,382,981 1,290,245

Health, Life, and Dental 1,184,962 1,092,784 1,616,584 1,670,124 General Fund 355,517 296,753 382,455 367,287 Cash Funds 225,527 250,785 264,954 271,536 Reappropriated Funds 603,918 545,246 594,338 642,599 Federal Funds 0 0 374,837 388,702

Short-term Disability 17,976 16,501 22,366 20,857 General Fund 4,967 4,014 4,801 4,142 Cash Funds 3,301 2,972 2,891 2,523 Reappropriated Funds 9,708 9,515 10,002 9,479 Federal Funds 0 0 4,672 4,713

30-Nov-2017 31 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 388,872 423,229 610,754 629,996 General Fund 99,960 103,946 131,060 125,117 Cash Funds 69,147 72,968 78,930 76,217 Reappropriated Funds 219,765 246,315 273,005 286,308 Federal Funds 0 0 127,759 142,354

S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization Equalization Disbursement 375,617 418,918 610,754 629,996 General Fund 96,551 102,863 131,060 125,117 Cash Funds 66,825 72,306 78,930 76,217 Reappropriated Funds 212,241 243,749 273,005 286,308 Federal Funds 0 0 127,759 142,354

Salary Survey 82,746 2,527 232,794 409,559 General Fund 26,613 1,261 49,971 81,338 Cash Funds 0 0 30,090 49,551 Reappropriated Funds 56,133 1,266 104,101 186,126 Federal Funds 0 0 48,632 92,544

Merit Pay 77,586 0 96,785 0 General Fund 23,130 0 19,790 0 Cash Funds 0 0 12,295 0 Reappropriated Funds 54,456 0 40,776 0 Federal Funds 0 0 23,924 0

Workers' Compensation 88,090 108,635 124,934 152,057 General Fund 81,521 100,419 115,553 35,184 Cash Funds 2,989 3,682 4,177 36,233 Reappropriated Funds 3,580 4,534 5,204 80,640

30-Nov-2017 32 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

Operating Expenses 131,600 132,888 132,888 132,888 Reappropriated Funds 131,600 132,888 132,888 132,888

Legal Services 114,537 163,854 168,451 156,476 General Fund 114,537 149,421 145,682 135,750 Cash Funds 0 12,361 16,018 13,975 Reappropriated Funds 0 2,072 1,888 1,888 Federal Funds 0 0 4,863 4,863

Payment to Risk Management and Property Funds 33,952 49,452 59,569 50,648 * General Fund 31,604 46,032 55,450 11,720 Cash Funds 2,096 3,007 3,616 12,068 Reappropriated Funds 252 413 503 26,860

Vehicle Lease Payments 70,311 83,665 86,086 106,304 General Fund 70,311 73,721 77,341 95,505 Reappropriated Funds 0 9,944 8,745 10,799

Information Technology Asset Maintenance 32,656 79,460 80,469 74,950 * General Fund 29,913 29,913 29,913 28,713 Cash Funds 2,743 12,040 13,049 11,530 Reappropriated Funds 0 37,507 37,507 34,707

Leased Space 60,420 64,408 65,000 65,000 General Fund 22,376 21,784 22,376 22,376 Reappropriated Funds 38,044 42,624 42,624 42,624

30-Nov-2017 33 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

Capitol Complex Leased Space 601,961 629,538 794,076 728,542 General Fund 224,425 234,720 149,263 129,618 Cash Funds 39,158 40,703 47,644 133,483 Reappropriated Funds 338,378 354,115 539,080 297,079 Federal Funds 0 0 58,089 168,362

Payments to OIT 735,347 1,071,908 1,924,322 2,040,141 * General Fund 205,571 272,207 621,885 360,592 Cash Funds 6,139 113,689 297,632 691,229 Reappropriated Funds 523,637 686,012 514,557 620,874 Federal Funds 0 0 490,248 367,446

CORE Operations 355,404 423,762 426,454 409,010 General Fund 205,893 201,806 184,381 72,768 Cash Funds 0 0 0 74,939 Reappropriated Funds 149,511 221,956 202,320 166,783 Federal Funds 0 0 39,753 94,520

Moffat Tunnel Improvement District 71 58 100,000 100,000 Cash Funds 71 58 100,000 100,000

TOTAL - (1) Executive Director's Office 5,704,742 6,136,675 8,535,267 8,808,562 3.2% FTE 15.5 13.5 14.2 14.2 0.0% General Fund 1,592,889 1,638,860 2,120,981 1,736,996 (18.1%) Cash Funds 417,996 584,571 950,226 1,549,501 63.1% Reappropriated Funds 3,693,857 3,913,244 4,163,524 4,116,207 (1.1%) Federal Funds 0 0 1,300,536 1,405,858 8.1%

30-Nov-2017 34 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

(2) PROPERTY TAXATION This section provides funding for the Division of Property Taxation, the State Board of Equalization, and the Board of Assessment Appeals. Cash fund sources include the Property Tax Exemption Fund and the Board of Assessment Appeals Cash Fund. Reappropriated fund sources include transfers from the Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements line item in the Division of Local Government and indirect cost recoveries. Division of Property Taxation 2,453,706 2,526,830 2,848,932 2,905,849 FTE 30.6 30.9 37.2 37.2 General Fund 973,045 1,020,172 1,017,820 1,042,726 Cash Funds 737,683 678,182 928,842 942,096 Reappropriated Funds 742,978 828,476 902,270 921,027 Federal Funds 0 0 0 0

State Board of Equalization 12,856 12,856 12,856 12,856 General Fund 12,856 12,856 12,856 12,856

Board of Assessment Appeals 433,050 406,903 620,290 632,274 FTE 6.4 6.9 13.2 13.2 General Fund 379,779 255,266 330,498 452,714 Cash Funds 32,681 151,637 226,637 116,405 Reappropriated Funds 20,590 0 63,155 63,155

Indirect Cost Assessment 354,710 298,829 321,379 321,379 Cash Funds 174,755 170,855 168,733 168,733 Reappropriated Funds 179,955 127,974 152,646 152,646

30-Nov-2017 35 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

TOTAL - (2) Property Taxation 3,254,322 3,245,418 3,803,457 3,872,358 1.8% FTE 37.0 37.8 50.4 50.4 (0.0%) General Fund 1,365,680 1,288,294 1,361,174 1,508,296 10.8% Cash Funds 945,119 1,000,674 1,324,212 1,227,234 (7.3%) Reappropriated Funds 943,523 956,450 1,118,071 1,136,828 1.7% Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0.0%

30-Nov-2017 36 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

(3) DIVISION OF HOUSING This division administers state and federal affordable housing programs and provides related financial and technical assistance to communities. This division also regulates the manufacture of factory-built residential and commercial buildings. Cash fund sources include the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund, the Building Regulation Fund, the Homeless Prevention Activities Program Fund, and the Private Activity Bond Allocations Fund. Reappropriated fund sources include a transfer from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing for home modifications, and internal transfers from the Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans line item in this division and from the Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements line item in the Division of Local Government. (A) Community and Non-Profit Services (i) Administration Personal Services 450,592 465,348 2,267,957 2,320,717 FTE 7.5 5.3 25.6 25.6 General Fund 341,264 348,495 348,714 361,193 Cash Funds 12,738 16,107 17,169 17,362 Reappropriated Funds 96,590 100,746 101,264 102,134 Federal Funds 0 0 1,800,810 1,840,028

Operating Expenses 38,778 38,778 378,873 378,873 General Fund 36,278 36,278 36,278 36,278 Cash Funds 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Federal Funds 0 0 340,095 340,095

SUBTOTAL - 489,370 504,126 2,646,830 2,699,590 2.0% FTE 7.5 5.3 25.6 25.6 (0.0%) General Fund 377,542 384,773 384,992 397,471 3.2% Cash Funds 15,238 18,607 19,669 19,862 1.0% Reappropriated Funds 96,590 100,746 101,264 102,134 0.9% Federal Funds 0 0 2,140,905 2,180,123 1.8%

30-Nov-2017 37 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

(ii) Community Services Low Income Rental Subsidies 51,734,182 54,328,673 53,136,975 53,136,975 FTE 15.9 17.8 0.0 0.0 General Fund 1,362,473 2,120,599 2,660,938 2,660,938 Federal Funds 50,371,709 52,208,074 50,476,037 50,476,037

Homeless Prevention Programs 1,616,060 1,817,572 1,984,430 1,984,430 FTE 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 Cash Funds 61,598 82,740 170,000 170,000 Federal Funds 1,554,462 1,734,832 1,814,430 1,814,430

SUBTOTAL - 53,350,242 56,146,245 55,121,405 55,121,405 0.0% FTE 16.6 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0% General Fund 1,362,473 2,120,599 2,660,938 2,660,938 0.0% Cash Funds 61,598 82,740 170,000 170,000 0.0% Federal Funds 51,926,171 53,942,906 52,290,467 52,290,467 0.0%

(iii) Fort Lyon Supportive Housing Program Program Costs 3,223,851 4,980,935 4,989,637 4,991,672 FTE 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 General Fund 3,223,851 4,980,935 4,989,637 4,991,672

SUBTOTAL - 3,223,851 4,980,935 4,989,637 4,991,672 0.0% FTE 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% General Fund 3,223,851 4,980,935 4,989,637 4,991,672 0.0%

30-Nov-2017 38 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

SUBTOTAL - (A) Community and Non-Profit Services 57,063,463 61,631,306 62,757,872 62,812,667 0.1% FTE 24.1 24.8 26.6 26.6 (0.0%) General Fund 4,963,866 7,486,307 8,035,567 8,050,081 0.2% Cash Funds 76,836 101,347 189,669 189,862 0.1% Reappropriated Funds 96,590 100,746 101,264 102,134 0.9% Federal Funds 51,926,171 53,942,906 54,431,372 54,470,590 0.1%

(B) Field Services Affordable Housing Program Costs 618,581 668,287 1,765,417 1,794,615 FTE 12.6 12.2 21.9 21.9 General Fund 294,035 299,952 300,284 309,485 Cash Funds 33,361 75,361 75,361 76,132 Reappropriated Funds 291,185 281,103 841,375 849,200 Federal Funds 0 11,871 548,397 559,798

Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans pursuant to Section 24-32-721, C.R.S. 13,051,996 11,957,794 35,528,793 35,528,793 FTE 4.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 General Fund 8,200,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 Cash Funds 0 0 15,300,000 15,300,000 Federal Funds 4,851,996 3,757,794 12,028,793 12,028,793

Housing Assistance for Persons Transitioning from the Criminal or Juvenile Justice Systems 0 0 0 4,758,600 * Cash Funds 0 0 0 4,758,600

30-Nov-2017 39 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

Manufactured Buildings Program 724,138 733,697 733,697 746,502 FTE 8.0 8.1 7.3 7.3 Cash Funds 724,138 733,697 733,697 746,502

SUBTOTAL - (B) Field Services 14,394,715 13,359,778 38,027,907 42,828,510 12.6% FTE 25.1 24.5 29.2 29.2 0.0% General Fund 8,494,035 8,499,952 8,500,284 8,509,485 0.1% Cash Funds 757,499 809,058 16,109,058 20,881,234 29.6% Reappropriated Funds 291,185 281,103 841,375 849,200 0.9% Federal Funds 4,851,996 3,769,665 12,577,190 12,588,591 0.1%

(C) Indirect Cost Assessments Indirect Cost Assessments 736,532 277,631 737,429 738,096 Cash Funds 201,692 223,638 186,245 186,500 Reappropriated Funds 64,729 53,993 19,064 19,064 Federal Funds 470,111 0 532,120 532,532

SUBTOTAL - (C) Indirect Cost Assessments 736,532 277,631 737,429 738,096 0.1% FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Cash Funds 201,692 223,638 186,245 186,500 0.1% Reappropriated Funds 64,729 53,993 19,064 19,064 0.0% Federal Funds 470,111 0 532,120 532,532 0.1%

TOTAL - (3) Division of Housing 72,194,710 75,268,715 101,523,208 106,379,273 4.8% FTE 49.2 49.3 55.8 55.8 (0.0%) General Fund 13,457,901 15,986,259 16,535,851 16,559,566 0.1% Cash Funds 1,036,027 1,134,043 16,484,972 21,257,596 29.0% Reappropriated Funds 452,504 435,842 961,703 970,398 0.9% Federal Funds 57,248,278 57,712,571 67,540,682 67,591,713 0.1%

30-Nov-2017 40 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

(4) DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT This division provides information and training for local governments concerning budget development, purchasing, demographics, land use planning, and regulatory issues. This division also manages federal and state funding programs to support local infrastructure and services. Cash fund sources primarily include: State severance tax and federal mineral lease revenues that are credited to the Local Government Severance Tax Fund and the Local Government Mineral Impact Fund; lottery proceeds that are credited to the Conservation Trust Fund; the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund; the Search and Rescue Fund; and the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority. Reappropriated fund sources include: transfers from the Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements line item in this division, spending authority out of the Firefighter Benefits Cash Fund, and indirect cost recoveries. (A) Local Government and Community Services (i) Administration Personal Services 1,346,833 1,325,451 1,549,412 1,587,435 FTE 16.1 17.4 19.2 19.2 General Fund 326,058 333,377 358,191 370,655 Reappropriated Funds 1,020,775 992,074 1,043,865 1,064,323 Federal Funds 0 0 147,356 152,457

Operating Expenses 64,089 50,349 142,699 136,496 General Fund 47,831 43,185 53,526 47,323 Reappropriated Funds 16,258 7,164 25,146 25,146 Federal Funds 0 0 64,027 64,027

Strategic Planning Group on Coloradans Age 50 and Over 364,915 64,954 0 0 FTE 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 General Fund 364,915 64,954 0 0

30-Nov-2017 41 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

SUBTOTAL - 1,775,837 1,440,754 1,692,111 1,723,931 1.9% FTE 16.4 17.7 19.2 19.2 0.0% General Fund 738,804 441,516 411,717 417,978 1.5% Reappropriated Funds 1,037,033 999,238 1,069,011 1,089,469 1.9% Federal Funds 0 0 211,383 216,484 2.4%

(ii) Local Government Services Local Utility Management Assistance 162,173 166,694 171,762 174,858 FTE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cash Funds 162,173 166,694 171,762 174,858

Conservation Trust Fund Disbursements 57,134,256 53,439,481 50,000,000 50,003,096 FTE 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 Cash Funds 57,134,256 53,439,481 50,000,000 50,003,096

Volunteer Firefighter Retirement Plans 4,116,022 4,202,791 4,200,000 4,220,000 General Fund 0 0 0 0 General Fund Exempt 4,116,022 4,202,791 4,200,000 4,220,000

Firefighter Heart and Circulatory Malfunction Benefits 1,743,429 1,765,896 1,703,273 1,704,432 FTE 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 General Fund 958,183 964,220 864,220 865,379 Reappropriated Funds 785,246 801,676 839,053 839,053

Volunteer Firefighter Death and Disability Insurance 21,065 21,065 30,000 30,000 General Fund Exempt 21,065 21,065 30,000 30,000

30-Nov-2017 42 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

Environmental Protection Agency Water/Sewer File Project 71,794 70,411 62,718 64,118 FTE 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Federal Funds 71,794 70,411 62,718 64,118

SUBTOTAL - 63,248,739 59,666,338 56,167,753 56,196,504 0.1% FTE 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.0 0.0% General Fund 958,183 964,220 864,220 865,379 0.1% General Fund Exempt 4,137,087 4,223,856 4,230,000 4,250,000 0.5% Cash Funds 57,296,429 53,606,175 50,171,762 50,177,954 0.0% Reappropriated Funds 785,246 801,676 839,053 839,053 0.0% Federal Funds 71,794 70,411 62,718 64,118 2.2%

(iii) Community Services Community Services Block Grant 6,217,900 5,520,899 6,000,000 6,000,000 FTE 2.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 Federal Funds 6,217,900 5,520,899 6,000,000 6,000,000

SUBTOTAL - 6,217,900 5,520,899 6,000,000 6,000,000 0.0% FTE 2.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0% Federal Funds 6,217,900 5,520,899 6,000,000 6,000,000 0.0%

30-Nov-2017 43 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

SUBTOTAL - (A) Local Government and Community Services 71,242,476 66,627,991 63,859,864 63,920,435 0.1% FTE 23.4 25.0 24.2 24.2 (0.0%) General Fund 1,696,987 1,405,736 1,275,937 1,283,357 0.6% General Fund Exempt 4,137,087 4,223,856 4,230,000 4,250,000 0.5% Cash Funds 57,296,429 53,606,175 50,171,762 50,177,954 0.0% Reappropriated Funds 1,822,279 1,800,914 1,908,064 1,928,522 1.1% Federal Funds 6,289,694 5,591,310 6,274,101 6,280,602 0.1%

(B) Field Services Program Costs 2,888,166 2,487,990 3,078,283 3,142,855 FTE 22.7 20.6 30.0 30.2 General Fund 0 0 51,001 55,928 Cash Funds 170,483 109,027 109,027 110,581 Reappropriated Funds 2,717,683 2,378,963 2,594,927 2,637,582 Federal Funds 0 0 323,328 338,764

Community Development Block Grant 8,267,863 9,628,086 5,200,000 5,200,000 FTE 2.9 4.6 0.0 0.0 Federal Funds 8,267,863 9,628,086 5,200,000 5,200,000

Local Government Mineral and Energy Impact Grants and Disbursements 123,909,064 142,925,791 100,000,000 100,000,000 Cash Funds 123,909,064 142,925,791 100,000,000 100,000,000

Local Government Limited Gaming Impact Grants 5,315,590 4,035,571 4,900,000 4,900,000 Cash Funds 5,315,590 4,035,571 4,900,000 4,900,000

30-Nov-2017 44 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

Local Government Geothermal Energy Impact Grants 8 36 50,000 50,000 Cash Funds 8 36 50,000 50,000

Rural Economic Development Initiative Grants 655,561 550,565 750,000 750,000 FTE 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 General Fund 655,561 550,565 750,000 750,000

Search and Rescue Program 455,280 481,284 618,420 620,433 FTE 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 Cash Funds 455,280 481,284 618,420 620,433

Local Government Marijuana Impact Grant Program 1,000,000 178,521 1,117,540 0 * FTE 0.0 1.4 2.0 1.0 General Fund 1,000,000 0 0 0 Cash Funds 0 178,521 1,117,540 0

Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program 0 0 5,919,036 5,940,151 FTE 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.5 Cash Funds 0 0 5,919,036 5,940,151

HB 17-1326 Crime Prevention Initiative Small Business Lending 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 General Fund 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000

HB 17-1326 Crime Prevention Initiative Parole Savings Fund 0 0 1,761,140 1,761,140 General Fund 0 0 1,761,140 1,761,140

30-Nov-2017 45 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

HB 17-1326 Crime Prevention Initiative Grants 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 General Fund 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000

Local Government Permanent Fund 0 4,478,361 0 0 Cash Funds 0 4,478,361 0 0

Other Local Government Grants 61,098 64,031 0 0 Cash Funds 61,098 64,031 0 0

SUBTOTAL - (B) Field Services 142,552,630 164,830,236 127,394,419 126,364,579 (0.8%) FTE 26.8 27.9 34.6 34.0 (1.7%) General Fund 1,655,561 550,565 6,562,141 6,567,068 0.1% Cash Funds 129,911,523 152,272,622 112,714,023 111,621,165 (1.0%) Reappropriated Funds 2,717,683 2,378,963 2,594,927 2,637,582 1.6% Federal Funds 8,267,863 9,628,086 5,523,328 5,538,764 0.3%

(C) Indirect Cost Assessments Indirect Cost Assessments 945,357 937,705 816,110 816,720 Cash Funds 125,434 145,454 176,534 176,534 Reappropriated Funds 670,289 792,251 573,102 573,712 Federal Funds 149,634 0 66,474 66,474

SUBTOTAL - (C) Indirect Cost Assessments 945,357 937,705 816,110 816,720 0.1% FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Cash Funds 125,434 145,454 176,534 176,534 0.0% Reappropriated Funds 670,289 792,251 573,102 573,712 0.1% Federal Funds 149,634 0 66,474 66,474 0.0%

30-Nov-2017 46 Local Affairs - brf Appendix A: Number Pages

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation

TOTAL - (4) Division of Local Government 214,740,463 232,395,932 192,070,393 191,101,734 (0.5%) FTE 50.2 52.9 58.8 58.2 (1.0%) General Fund 3,352,548 1,956,301 7,838,078 7,850,425 0.2% General Fund Exempt 4,137,087 4,223,856 4,230,000 4,250,000 0.5% Cash Funds 187,333,386 206,024,251 163,062,319 161,975,653 (0.7%) Reappropriated Funds 5,210,251 4,972,128 5,076,093 5,139,816 1.3% Federal Funds 14,707,191 15,219,396 11,863,903 11,885,840 0.2%

TOTAL - Department of Local Affairs 295,894,237 317,046,740 305,932,325 310,161,927 1.4% FTE 151.9 153.5 179.2 178.6 (0.3%) General Fund 19,769,018 20,869,714 27,856,084 27,655,283 (0.7%) General Fund Exempt 4,137,087 4,223,856 4,230,000 4,250,000 0.5% Cash Funds 189,732,528 208,743,539 181,821,729 186,009,984 2.3% Reappropriated Funds 10,300,135 10,277,664 11,319,391 11,363,249 0.4% Federal Funds 71,955,469 72,931,967 80,705,121 80,883,411 0.2%

NOTES: An asterisk (*) indicates that the FY 2018-19 requested amount for a line item is affected by one or more decision items. Actual expenditures of federal funds, including the associated FTE, are reflected in line items based on the Department's accounting practices rather than the appropriation.

30-Nov-2017 47 Local Affairs - brf

APPENDIX B RECENT LEGISLATION AFFECTING DEPARTMENT BUDGET

2016 SESSION BILLS

S.B. 16-218 (STATE SEVERANCE TAX REFUNDS): Addresses a severance tax refund obligation arising as a result of the Colorado Supreme Court's April 25, 2016, decision in BP America v. Colorado Department of Revenue. Creates a mechanism for refunds of severance tax revenue to businesses, including businesses that revise their severance tax refunds to claim additional tax deductions for tax years 2012 through 2015. Diverts amounts required, estimated at $115.1 million in FY 2015-16, from the General Fund reserve to make the reimbursements. Restricts expenditures of severance tax money in various funds unless lifted in whole or in part by the Joint Budget Committee. In the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), restricts $48.3 million in the Local Government Severance Tax Fund.

H.B. 16-1175 (PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ADMINISTRATION): Makes various administrative changes to help identify applicants who do not meet the legal requirements for the Senior Citizen and Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption. Authorizes data sharing and related cross-checking of records from the Department of Revenue, DOLA, and the Department of Public Health and Environment. Ensures that the State Treasurer does not reimburse counties for exemptions that do not meet all the legal requirements. Appropriates $29,270 General Fund and 0.5 FTE to DOLA for FY 2016-17.

H.B. 16-1411 (FORT LYON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STUDY): Authorizes the State Auditor to contract for a study to evaluate the costs, benefits, and outcomes of the Fort Lyon Supportive Residential Community, a program that serves approximately 250 chronically homeless individuals at a historic facility in Bent County. Requires that a Fort Lyon Study Advisory Committee, appointed by the Director of the DOLA’s Division of Housing, assist the Auditor and Division in evaluating contractor proposals and the selected contractor's progress on the study. Requires the submission of a preliminary findings report to the State Auditor by August 1, 2017, and a final report by August 1, 2018. For FY 2016-17, appropriates $200,000 General Fund to the Legislative Department for the Office of the State Auditor to contract for the study, and appropriates $11,875 General Fund to the Department of Corrections for contract services related to compiling data for the study. Allows unspent amounts to remain available for expenditure in FY 2017-18.

H.B. 16-1465 (MODIFICATIONS LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT): Extends from two years to five years, through the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, the period during which the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) may allocate low-income housing tax credits. For each year through 2019, allows CHFA to allocate tax credits valued at $30 million ($5.0 million per year, credited over six or more years). For the newly authorized years, deletes provisions added in 2014 that exempted from the aggregate annual limit credit allocations to developments located in counties impacted by a natural disaster.

30-Nov-2017 48 Local Affairs - brf

2017 SESSION BILLS

S.B. 17-021 (ASSISTANCE TO RELEASED MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS): Establishes a housing program for certain persons who are transitioning from incarceration to be managed by DOLA’s Division of Housing. Subject to available appropriations, requires the Division to: (1) provide vouchers and other supportive services to persons with a mental health disorder or co-occurring behavioral health disorder that are newly released from the Department of Corrections, the Division of Youth Services in the Department of Human Services, or a county jail; and (2) provide grants or loans for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of rental housing for persons with behavioral or mental health disorders.

Creates the Housing Assistance for Persons Transitioning from the Criminal or Juvenile Justice System Cash Fund, which consists of any money appropriated by the General Assembly and a potential one-time transfer from the Department of Public Safety. Specifically, any money appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of Public Safety’s Division of Criminal Justice for community corrections that is unexpended or unencumbered at the close of FY 2016-17 is transferred to the new cash fund for appropriation to DOLA for the new housing assistance program described above.

Expands the permissible uses of the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF), allowing the appropriation of MTCF funds for housing, rental assistance, and supportive services, including reentry services.

S.B. 17-260 (SEVERANCE TAX CASH FUND TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND): Effective June 30, 2018, transfers to the General Fund a total of $45.7 million from severance tax revenue. This transfer includes $22,850,000 from the Local Government Severance Tax Fund, $11,425,000 from the Severance Tax Permanent Fund, and $11,425,000 from the Severance Tax Operational Fund.

H.B. 17-1221 (GRAY AND BLACK MARKET MJ ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS): Creates the Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Grant Program in DOLA. Also creates an offense for a person who is not a primary caregiver for possessing a marijuana plant that the person is growing on behalf of another person.

Authorizes DOLA to award grants to local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys to cover investigation and prosecution costs associated with unlicensed and illegal marijuana cultivation or distribution operations. Outlines priorities for the grant program and requires DOLA to establish related policies and procedures. Authorizes the appropriation of money from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF) for the grant program and related administration, and allows money not expended in a given fiscal year to remain available for expenditure in the next fiscal year. Requires DOLA to provide an annual update about the program in its annual SMART Act hearing for the General Assembly, beginning November 1, 2019.

Appropriates $5,945,392 cash funds from the MTCF for FY 2017-18 to DOLA and reflects the assumption that DOLA will require an additional 1.3 FTE. The total amount includes $5,919,036 for the grant program and its administration, $21,603 for the purchase of information technology services, and $4,753 for the purchase of legal services. Provides FY 2017-18 appropriations of $21,603 reappropriated funds to the Governor’s Office for related information technology services and $4,753 reappropriated funds to the Department of Law for related legal services.

30-Nov-2017 49 Local Affairs - brf

H.B. 17-1313 (CIVIL FORFEITURE REFORM): Requires criminal justice agencies involved in the seizure of property to submit biannual seizure reports to DOLA, and requires DOLA to establish and maintain a searchable public access database for seizure-related information. Imposes restrictions and requirements on an agency’s ability to receive forfeiture proceeds from the federal government, a joint task force, or multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Requires DOLA to submit annual reports summarizing seizure and forfeiture activity in the state to the Governor, the Attorney General, and the General Assembly beginning December 31, 2019. Provides a FY 2017-18 appropriation of $84,451 General Fund to DOLA and reflects the assumption that DOLA will require an additional 0.5 FTE. Appropriates $4,753 reappropriated funds to the Department of Law and $44,486 reappropriated funds to the Governor’s Office for related legal and information technology services.

H.B. 17-1326 (JUSTICE REINVESTMENT CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVE): Creates the Justice Reinvestment Crime Prevention Initiative in DOLA’s Division of Local Government. This new program will provide small business loans and grants that are designed to reduce crime and promote community development in the target communities of north Aurora and southeast Colorado Springs.  Requires the Division to issue a request for participation from one or more nondepository community development financial institution loan funds to participate in the small business lending program. Requires the Division to enter into a contract with the selected funds to define the operating terms of the loan program; however, limits the loans to five years and $50,000.  Requires the Division to issue a request for participation to select one or more community foundations to manage the grant program. Allows the grant program to fund: o academic improvement programs; o community-based services; o community engagement programs; o increasing safety and usability of common outdoor-spaces programs; o technical assistance related to data collection, data analysis, and evaluation; and o administrative costs of the foundation.

Funds the above-described program through various changes to parole, and establishes a new Parole Savings Fund to consist of “money generated by savings created in enacting [this act] and appropriated to the fund by the General Assembly”. Requires the State Treasurer to transfer to the General Fund any unexpended and unencumbered money remaining in the Fund at the end of the fiscal year. Subject to annual appropriation, allows money in the Fund to be expended by:  DOLA’s Division of Local Government to provide small business lending and grants through the above-described program; and  the Department of Corrections (DOC) for external capacity if the anticipated reduction in the use of private prison beds from the act’s parole changes are not achieved.

For FY 2017-18, the act provides direct General Fund appropriations for the DOLA lending and grant programs. In subsequent fiscal years, the lending and grant programs will be supported by appropriations from the Parole Savings Fund. Adjusts FY 2017-18 appropriations to the DOC and DOLA as follows:

30-Nov-2017 50 Local Affairs - brf

H.B. 17-1326 ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 2017-18 APPROPRIATIONS GENERAL FUND Department of Corrections (DOC) Appropriation Changes Payments to local jails $13,595 Payments to in-state private prisons (2,165,720) Payments to pre-release parole revocation facilities (1,082,860) Payments to community return to custody facilities (2,775,738) Parole personal services 36,254 FTE (0.8 FTE) Parole operating expenses 5,463 Computer programming 103,824 Total DOC adjustments ($5,865,182) Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Appropriation Changes Division of Local Government $51,001 FTE (0.8 FTE) Computer programming 48,288 Legal services 4,753 Small business lending 1,000,000 Grants for crime reduction and community development 3,000,000 Appropriation to the Parole Savings Fund 1,761,140 Total DOLA Adjustments $5,865,182

Overall General Fund Adjustments $0

30-Nov-2017 51 Local Affairs - brf

APPENDIX C FOOTNOTES AND INFORMATION REQUESTS

The following Long Bill Footnotes (LBF) and Requests for Information (RFI) relate to the Department of Local Affairs and are included in this Appendix:

Executive Director’s Office RFI #1 – Moffat Tunnel Improvement District RFI #2 – Use of local government energy impact funds for Department administration

Division of Housing LBF #64 – Legislative intent regarding General Fund appropriations for affordable housing LBF #64a – Authority to transfer Marijuana Tax Cash Fund appropriation for rental vouchers LBF #65 – Legislative intent regarding Affordable Housing Program Costs line item RFI #3 – Annual report concerning affordable housing programs

Division of Local Government LBF #66 – Authority to “roll forward” appropriation for Rural Economic Development Initiative RFI #4 – September 1, 2018, report concerning impact of the new field services position added in Grand Junction in FY 2017-18 to assist local communities in responding to the economic impact of energy transformation

UPDATE ON LONG BILL FOOTNOTES

64 Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing -- It is the intent of the General Assembly that the Department target state General Fund appropriations for affordable housing to projects and clients that can be reasonably expected to reduce other state costs.

COMMENT: This footnote expresses legislative intent, and was first included in the FY 2015- 16 Long Bill.

64a Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing, Community and Non-Profit Services, Community Services, Low Income Rental Subsidies; and Field Services, Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans pursuant to Section 24-32-721, C.R.S. -- It is General Assembly's intent that rental vouchers issued by the Division of Housing are charged to the Low Income Rental Subsidies line item. For the purpose of issuing rental vouchers, the Department may transfer up to $3,200,000 cash funds from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund from the line item for Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans pursuant to Section 24-32-721, C.R.S., to the line item for Low Income Rental Subsidies.

COMMENT: This footnote was first included in the FY 2017-18 Long Bill to state the General Assembly’s intent that when the Department utilizes a portion of the “Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans” line item appropriation for rental vouchers, and the related expenditures be recorded within the “Low Income Rental Subsidies” line item. This footnote

30-Nov-2017 52 Local Affairs - brf

is intended to improve transparency by requesting that the Department separately report rental voucher expenditures and expenditures for construction grants and loans. For FY 2017-18, this footnote authorizes the Department to utilize up to $3.2 million the amount appropriated from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund for rental vouchers.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION – FY 2017-18 APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE MARIJUANA TAX CASH FUND The Department requested and received appropriations from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund as part of the Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans line item for FY 2017-18. The requested funds were intended to be used for a mix of construction subsidies, rental vouchers, and related administrative expenses. This request was intended to address the housing needs of individuals transitioning from or at risk of entering hospitals or the state mental health institutes, as well as individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness including veterans, youth, and people transitioning from the Department of Corrections.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION – STATUTORY AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AND LOANS LINE ITEM Section 24-32-721, C.R.S., creates the Housing Development Fund, which consists of money appropriated to the “Colorado Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loan Fund” and federal grants and other contributions, gifts, grants, and donations received by the Division of Housing for purposes consistent with Section 24-32-721, C.R.S. Money in the Housing Development Fund is continuously appropriated to the Division for the purpose of making a grant or loan to “improve, preserve, or expand the supply of affordable housing in Colorado as well as to fund the acquisition of housing and economic data necessary to advise the [State Housing Board] on local housing conditions”. The Division is also authorized to: o Annually transfer up to 20.0 percent of the Housing Development Fund balance to the Housing Investment Trust Fund, which is available for the Division to make loans for development or redevelopment costs for low- or moderate-income housing; and o Spend up to 3.0 percent of the money appropriated from the Housing Development Fund for the Divisions’ related administrative costs.

Senate Bill 17-021 added subsection (4) to Section 24-32-721, C.R.S., to authorize the Division to establish a program that provides rental vouchers and other support services for housing assistance for a person with a mental health disorder or co-occurring behavioral health disorder who is transitioning from the Department of Corrections, the Division of Youth Corrections in the Department of Human Services, or a county jail into the community. This subsection also requires the Division to provide grants or loans for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of rental housing for persons with behavioral or mental health disorders. Finally, this subsection creates the Housing Assistance for Persons Transitioning from the Criminal or Juvenile Justice System Cash Fund to provide housing assistance for persons with behavioral or mental health disorders who are transitioning from incarceration. The source of funding is a one-time transfer of unspent General Fund money that was appropriated for FY 2016-17 for community corrections programs and services. This fund is subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly.

65 Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing, Field Services, Affordable Housing Program Costs; and Affordable Housing Construction Grants and Loans pursuant to Section 24-32-721, C.R.S. -- It is the General Assembly's intent that appropriations for state

30-Nov-2017 53 Local Affairs - brf

administration of affordable housing construction grants and loans, including administration funding authorized pursuant to Section 24-32-721(3)(b), C.R.S., be expended in the Affordable Housing Program Costs line item.

COMMENT: This footnote was first included in the FY 2017-18 Long Bill to state the General Assembly’s intent that when the Department utilizes a portion of the “Affordable Housing Grants and Loans” line item appropriation for administrative purposes, the related expenditures be recorded within the “Affordable Housing Program Costs” line item. This footnote is intended to improve transparency by requesting that the Department separately report administrative expenditures and expenditures for construction grants and loans and rental vouchers.

66 Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government, Field Services, Rural Economic Development Initiative -- This appropriation remains available until June 30, 2019.

COMMENT: This footnote was first added to the FY 2016-17 Long Bill in response to a mid- year request submitted by the Department. This program, re-activated through FY 2015-16 budget action, funds planning and infrastructure grants for local governments. The most competitive applications are from rural counties with fewer than 50,000 people and municipalities and unincorporated communities with fewer than 20,000 people. For fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, the General Assembly has appropriated $750,000 General Fund annually.

The Department’s request for the authority to “roll forward” annual spending authority for one fiscal year was intended to address two challenges: o Reversion of funds: If a project comes in under-budget, unspent money from a completed contract are de-obligated and reverted. Most contracts are not completed until the fourth quarter, meaning there is little time to re-purpose unused funds. o Multi-year projects: More complex construction projects or planning processes that require more extensive community engagement cannot be supported with Rural Economic Development Initiative funds if all money must be awarded, contracted, and expended in the same fiscal year.

The Committee, and ultimately the General Assembly, approved this request for FY 2016-17 and continued this footnote in the FY 2017-18 Long Bill. Actual expenditures since this program was re-activated are listed below: o FY 2015-16: $655,561 o FY 2016-17: $550,565

30-Nov-2017 54 Local Affairs - brf

UPDATE ON REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

1 Department of Local Affairs, Executive Director’s Office, Moffat Tunnel Improvement District – The Department is requested to submit a report by October 1, 2017, concerning the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District. The report should address: (1) What land/property is owned by the Improvement District? (2) What are the State and Improvement District’s legal and functional responsibilities for the Tunnel and any related lands versus that of other entities? (3) Does Union Pacific or another entity have legal responsibility for ensuring the structural soundness and safety of the Tunnel? (4) Does the State or should the State or the Improvement District have any related responsibility for ensuring the Tunnel’s soundness, given its length and age? (5) Does the State anticipate again attempting to sell the Tunnel or to renegotiate lease agreements and, if so, is this anticipated to occur in 2025 or at another time? (6) What steps are likely to be required prior to sale or renegotiation of lease amounts (e.g., legal, engineering, consultation with other State and local entities)? (7) How does the Department propose to use money accumulating in the Moffat Tunnel Cash Fund? How much is likely to be required and when? (8) Does the Department recommend any statutory or administrative changes related to the Tunnel or the Improvement District?

COMMENT: The Department submitted the report as requested. The response is discussed in the staff briefing issue concerning the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District.

2 Department of Local Affairs, Executive Director’s office – The Department of Local Affairs is requested to submit a report by September 1, 2017 on the use of local government severance tax and mineral impact funds for Department administration. This report should compare: o workload related to serving energy-impacted communities; o workload related to administering energy impact grant and direct distribution programs; and o the appropriation of energy impact funds throughout the Department.

The report should address whether the amount of local government severance tax and mineral impact funds appropriated for administration in the Department’s budget is reasonable. The report may provide more than one approach to the analysis.

COMMENT: The Department submitted the report as requested. Staff has provided a summary of the report below. Staff continues to work with the Department with a goal of presenting a detailed proposal for the Committee’s consideration as part of the 2018 figure setting process. The proposal is intended to establish a more consistent, transparent methodology for administrative appropriations using severance tax revenue and mineral impact funds.

SUMMARY OF THE USE OF ENERGY IMPACT FUNDS BY THE DEPARTMENT The Department of Local Affairs receives fifty percent of severance tax revenue and 40 percent of most federal mineral lease revenue. These funds support direct distributions to local governments (via formula) and a large grant program that primarily supports local infrastructure projects. This money is also used to support Department administration. Legislative practice has been to appropriate funds for administration and to treat funding for grants and direct distributions as continuously appropriated. Statute requires that the grant

30-Nov-2017 55 Local Affairs - brf

program be used for “energy impacted communities”, and this has been interpreted to mean the entire state. Grant funds are used flexibly to support local governments and to pursue specific executive initiatives related to local governments. These grants represent a small proportion of overall revenue to most local governments, and the General Assembly has at times redirected these revenues to the General Fund.

SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO RFI Conclusion: The Department concludes that the uses of severance tax and mineral impact funds to support personal services, operating expenses, and program costs in the Department are largely appropriate. The Department, however, identifies one exception. The Department indicates that the Division of Property Taxation does not have enough severance activity workload to justify the current appropriation provided from energy impact funds. The Department also indicates that energy impact funds utilized by the Division of Housing could be better aligned. However, the Department indicates that it “understands that Colorado still struggles to find enough General Fund to support the needs of all agencies and programs around the State and is not requesting a change in its Long Bill funding sources”.

Background: Beginning in FY 2003-04, the Joint Budget Committee recommended (and the General Assembly approved) refinancing certain General Fund expenses in the Department of Local Affairs with severance tax revenue and mineral impact funds (referred to jointly as energy impact funds). At that time, this initial refinance was only instituted for the Division of Property Taxation’s program costs line, which covers both personal services and operating expenses. Over time, this refinancing occurred in all personal services, operating expenses, and program costs line items with the exception is the Board of Assessment Appeals. While such refinancing was never formally set in the statutory provisions concerning the Local Government Severance Tax Fund [created in Section 39-29-110 (1)(a)(I), C.R.S.] or the Local Government Mineral Impact Fund [created in Section 34-63-102 (5)(a), C.R.S.], it has continued largely unchanged since FY 2003-04.

Executive Director’s Office (EDO): Prior to FY 2004-05, the EDO’s personal services funding was comprised of anywhere from 45 percent to 70 percent General Fund with the remainder provided from re-appropriated sources through the Department’s indirect cost recovery plan. The EDO’s operating expenses were nearly all General Fund with federal funds providing approximately five percent of the total appropriation. Beginning in FY 2004-05, the EDO’s personal services line item was fully funded from re-appropriated sources. This has continued unchanged to the present time. The same is true for the EDO’s operating expenses line item as well with a small portion of these costs supported by federal funds until FY 2014- 15. With the exception of the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, all EDO line items are almost completely funded out of the Department’s indirect cost recoveries.

Property Taxation, Division of Property Taxation (DPT): This program was fully funded from the General Fund through FY 2003-04. Since FY 2004-05, approximately 30 percent of this line item has been funded from energy impact funds. The Department has been unable to ascertain the original basis for this level of support for DPT coming from severance tax and mineral impact funds. During the 2003 legislative session, the General Assembly adopted S.B. 03-261, which created the Property Tax Exemptions Fund. This legislation instituted a series of new statutory fees to support the work of the DPT staff working exclusively with property tax exemptions. The creation of this fund did not change the level of support for DPT

30-Nov-2017 56 Local Affairs - brf

provided from energy impact funds, but did reduce the State’s General Fund support from 70 percent to approximately 35 percent.

The Department indicates that based on workload conducted in areas of the State with significant severance industry activities, DPT management believes that only $191,057 of the existing $902,270 appropriation from energy impact funds can be directly justified. If the General Assembly chooses to realign the funding for DPT, it would require an increase of $711,213 General Fund plus additional amount for related centrally appropriated line items and the use of indirect cost recoveries in the EDO.

Division of Housing: Prior to FY 2014-15, the Division of Housing section of the Long Bill was organized differently than it is now. Between FY 2001-02 and FY 2013-14, the mix of funds supporting the personal services line item was inconsistent. In FY 2014-15, the Long Bill organized Division appropriations into to subsections: o Community and Non-Profit Services – In FY 2017-18, personal services for this section of the division total $2,267,957, of which $101,264 is reappropriated from energy impact funds. These funds are supposed to represent workload for the Division that are driven by affordable housing needs (typically workforce housing) in areas of the state impacted by severance industry activities. However, it is not clear why these funds have been included in this subsection since most of these responsibilities are handled by the Field Services group.

o Field Services – In FY 2017-18, the Affordable Housing Program Costs line totals $1,765,417, of which $76,019 is reappropriated from both energy impact funds. The current personal services appropriation for this subsection supports a portion of three field staff working in areas of the State with critical workforce housing issues. Personal services expenses for these three positions total $232,619.

Division of Local Government: While the rationale for supporting the Division of Local Government (DLG) with energy impact dollars is more straightforward than other divisions, the history and rational for such financing is not obvious or consistent. o Local Government and Community Services, Administration – In FY 2017-18, the personal services line for this section is appropriated a total of $1,524,598, which is comprised of $333,377 General Fund to support 3.0 FTE, $1,043,865 reappropriated funds to support 13.1 FTE, and estimated federal funds of $147,356 to support 2.6 FTE. Approximately 33 percent of reappropriated funds in this line item are paid from either the Department’s indirect cost recovery model or its subaccount of the Indirect Costs Excess Recovery Fund. This occurred pursuant to H.B. 12-1283, which transferred $356,507 and 5.0 FTE from General Fund to re-appropriated funds. The legislation specifically directed that these staff shall be paid from departmental indirect cost recoveries. Despite a significant General Fund downturn in FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04, this line item did not exhibit a concerted attempt by either the Joint Budget Committee or the General Assembly to refinance positions that were supported by General Fund with energy impact funds.

o Field Services – In FY 2017-18, the program costs line for this section is appropriated a total of $3,027,282, which is comprised of $109,027 cash funds to support 1.0 FTE and associated operating expenses, $2,594,927 reappropriated funds to support 23.9 FTE and associated operating expenses, and estimated federal funds of $323,328 to support 4.3

30-Nov-2017 57 Local Affairs - brf

FTE and associated operating expenses. The full amount of the reappropriated funds in this line item is from energy impact funds. Through the supplemental bill for FY 2009-10, the General Fund appropriation was eliminated for this line item and replaced with energy impact funds. The original source and basis for this adjustment is not clear. 3 Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing -- The Department is requested to submit a report by September 1, 2017 on its affordable housing programs. The report should specifically address: o the projects funded with the affordable housing construction moneys provided; o the per-unit costs of these projects identifying specifically state funds and other funds; o how the projects funded align with the goals outlined in the Department's FY 2014-15 budget request to "end homelessness for veterans and chronically homeless" and "ensure sufficient affordable housing for persons with the lowest incomes"; and o what progress the State has made in achieving each of these goals.

The report should also provide an update on the Department’s plans and progress in using $15,300,000 Marijuana Tax Cash Funds added in FY 2017-18. This should include information on the steps the Department is taking to ensure the additional funds are used for populations and services that are consistent with the provisions of Section 39-28.8-501, C.R.S.

COMMENT: The Department submitted the report as requested. Staff has provided a summary of the report below.

COST EFFECTIVENESS OF FY 2016-17 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DIVISION OF HOUSING The Department utilizes General Fund appropriations to meet affordable housing needs throughout the state. This includes housing for people who are homeless, homeless veterans, disabled, or seniors, as well as workforce housing in the mountains and other tight markets. It is the intent of both the General Assembly and the Department that the appropriations are targeted towards individuals and projects that not only ensure low-income Coloradans, homeless veterans, and the chronically homeless secure, stable, and safe housing, but in doing so, create a reduction in state costs.

The Housing Development Grant (HDG) provides funds to housing developers for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of affordable housing through a competitive application process to improve, preserve, or expand the supply of affordable housing in Colorado. Eligible development projects primarily consist of affordable rental and for-sale housing. The Division awarded over $7.95 million of HDG funds from its FY 2016-17 appropriation, including over $7.57 million for fifteen new construction and rehabilitation projects and nearly $400,000 for three programs that consisted of other activities, including a mobile home improvement program, an emergency shelter, and a landlord and tenant counseling program. These three programs have not been included in the program outcomes section below. The Department did not fund any projects in FY 2016-17 from the Housing Investment Trust Fund (HITF) due to the low current balance in this fund.

30-Nov-2017 58 Local Affairs - brf

Table 1. HDG and HITF Three-Year Summary

HDG and HITF HDG

Project Type FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17

Total Projects 27 23 18

New Construction or Rehabilitation Projects 22 15 15

Total Units 1,153 1,355 1,011

New Construction or Rehabilitation Project Units 1,048 1,166 959

Total Amount Awarded $10,294,772 $8,700,105 $7,954,000

Of the fifteen new construction and rehabilitation projects that were funded in FY 2016-17, six were rental new construction, and nine were rental rehabilitation. These fifteen projects will result in 959 housing units, of which 936 are affordable. The average per unit development cost for the fifteen new construction and rehabilitation projects was approximately $187,500.

The average HDG award per unit was approximately $7,900 for these projects, compared to over $179,600 per unit in leveraged funds. Four of these projects include supportive housing units for formerly homeless persons, with an average award of $17,900 per unit. One of these four projects, Ute Mountain Ute Supportive Housing, had a significantly higher award per unit at $79,200. This is the first permanent supportive housing project on tribal land in Towaoc, Colorado, and the Division was the primary funder, rather than our normal role of a gap financer, of the 11-unit development. Without the Ute Mountain Ute Supportive Housing development, the Division award per unit for the three other supportive housing projects was $11,800.

Units for Homeless Populations and Persons with the Lowest Incomes: The Division funded seven homeless projects in FY 2016-17 with federal and state funds, which supported 370 affordable units, including 222 units for homeless Coloradans. This included an investment of nearly $2.2 million in HDG, leveraged by $22 million from other sources, in four supportive housing development projects that will serve homeless populations. Together, these projects will result in 119 total affordable housing units, including 66 with supportive services for homeless Coloradans. Only one of the four homeless projects funded by HDG received an allocation of competitive Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in 2016. The Division awarded an additional three homeless projects that received a competitive LIHTC allocation in 2016 with its non-HDG sources.

Significant progress has also been made toward providing affordable housing for persons with the lowest incomes. From the FY 2016-17 appropriation, DOH invested over $6.7 million to develop 898 affordable units in 11 projects. These projects included 218 units for persons with the lowest incomes, either through units with rents affordable to working poor households earning at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) or through units with project-based rental assistance. While units with project-based rental assistance can have AMI restrictions up to 50 percent AMI, state housing voucher program participants had an average

30-Nov-2017 59 Local Affairs - brf

annual income of only $11,606 in FY 2016-17. These 218 units for households with the lowest incomes represent 23 percent of the units funded by the FY 2016-17 appropriation. These units, affordable to the lowest income Coloradans, will reduce the number of severely cost- burdened households and help prevent homelessness for very low-income families.

Table 2. Persons with the Greatest Need Summary

New Construction or Rehabilitation FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Projects - Population

Homeless Persons

Projects 4 5 4

Units 102 264 66

Persons with the Lowest Incomes

Projects 17 10 11

Units 547 324 218

Funds provided by HDG for new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects are often significantly leveraged by other sources of public and private funds, which greatly increases the overall impact. The Division estimates that the approximately $7.57 million awarded for rental new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects will be leveraged by nearly $187 million in other public and private funds.

Table 3. Return on Investment: Funds Leveraged Average Total Total Total Average HDG Funds Project Type Other Funds Projects Units HDG per Unit Leveraged per Unit Rental New Construction 6 310 $3,311,538 $10,682 $90,113,971 $290,690 Rental Acquisition / 9 649 $4,260,747 $6,565 $96,685,885 $148,977 Rehabilitation Totals for Appropriated 15 959 $7,572,285 $7,896 $186,799,856 $194,786 Funds Invested

The Division provided the following table summarizing the HDG projects that were funded in FY 2016-17, along with narrative descriptions of each project.

Table 9. 2016-2017 Housing Development Grant (HDG) Projects Lever- Total Project Project # County and Name Units Amount aging Cost

15-070 Montezuma County – Ute Mountain Ute $871,014 $1,146,014 0.3:1 Supportive Housing 11

30-Nov-2017 60 Local Affairs - brf

Table 9. 2016-2017 Housing Development Grant (HDG) Projects Lever- Total Project Project # County and Name Units Amount aging Cost

16-060 San Juan County – Anvil Mountain $305,430 $1,835,770 5:1 Apartments 12 16-061 Larimer County – Village on Shields 285 $995,722 $63,559,702 62:1 16-072 Denver County – Comitis, The Castle 7 $92,978 $819,615 7:1 16-074* El Paso County – Springs Rescue Mission $235,715 $5,773,877 5:1 Shelter** 42 17-003B* Larimer County – Mobile Home $96,000 $1,073,910 10:1 Improvement Program 10

17-012 Mesa County – Nellie Bechtel Apartments 96 $952,047 $6,791,332 6:1 17-026 El Paso County – Fountain Ridge $360,000 $3,074,564 7:1 Apartments 36 17-027 El Paso County – Fountain Ridge South $230,000 $4,934,109 20:1 Apartments 75

17-040 Denver County – Family HomeStead 33 $500,000 $2,435,500 4:1 Parkside 17-042 Jefferson County – Villas at Wadsworth $715,000 $15,853,420 21:1 Station 100 17-043 Denver County – Lowry Family Housing 72 $720,000 $20,141,517 27:1 17-046 Jefferson County – Fifty Eight Hundred 150 $800,000 $36,069,110 44:1 17-053 Adams County – BHA Windmill Ranch*** $135,094 $22,371,166 25:1 15

17-055 Huerfano County – La Veta Village $400,000 $3,058,040 6:1 Assisted Living 17 17-057 Chaffee County – Collegiate Commons 48 $480,000 $12,576,838 25:1 17-062 Summit County – Advocates for Victims of $15,000 $420,350 27:1 Assault Transitional Housing 1 17-073* El Paso County – Brothers Redevelopment $50,000 $100,000 1:1 Landlord/Tenant Counseling (Year 2) n/a * These projects do not consist of the acquisition, rehabilitation or new construction of homeownership or rental units; they have not been included in the program outcome metrics. They consist of mobile home repair, emergency shelter, and landlord and tenant counseling. ** Project 16-074 total award of $850,000. Balance of $614,285 awarded from FY16 HDG funding. Project not included in the program outcome metrics. ***Total award of $850,000. Balance of $714,906 awarded from FY18 HDG funding. Units are pro-rated (96 total units).

30-Nov-2017 61 Local Affairs - brf

$15,300,000 APPROPRIATION FROM THE MARIJUANA TAX CASH FUND TO THE DIVISION OF HOUSING

Housing Development Activities: The Division provided the following table summarizing housing developments that have been reviewed and approved by the State Housing Board and the Department’s Executive Director since July 1, 2017. The Division also provided narrative descriptions of each project.

Number of Permanent Name of Project Amount of HSP Location Targeted Population Supportive or Agency Funding Awarded Housing (PSH) Units Homeless Moline Denver $1,250,000 Veterans/People 36 PSH units Apartments with Disabilities Flats at Two Lakewood $1,000,000 Homeless Veterans 20 PSH units Creeks Homeless Arroyo Village Denver $1,000,000 35 PSH units Individuals/families Attention Homes Boulder $400,000 Homeless Youth 40 PSH units Homeless La Puente Homes Alamosa $1,369,662 25 PSH units Individuals/families 11 PSH units Homeless The Bridge Cortez $550,000 15 sober living Individuals/families units Total $6,620,262

Rental Assistance: The Department indicates that it is using many different programs and sources for referrals, and a variety of assessment tools targeted to identify those with the highest need within specific populations. The Department provided the following table to summarize the current referral sources and the tenant-based housing vouchers that have been distributed to the Department’s partner agencies, to be issued to eligible participants. The Department provided a narrative description of each project/agency and the tools that are used to identify those with the highest needs.

Name of Project/Agency Number of Targeted Population Voucher Awarded Denver Social Impact Bond Program 27 High utilizing homeless (Mental Health Center of Denver) individuals Office of Behavioral Health (OBH) Mental 25 Individuals with a behavioral Health Institutes health diagnosis being (Pueblo & Fort Logan) released to homelessness Colorado Department of Human Services 25 Homeless Youth (CDHS) Pathways Program

30-Nov-2017 62 Local Affairs - brf

Name of Project/Agency Number of Targeted Population Voucher Awarded Department of Corrections (DOC) 25 Individuals identified by DOC with behavioral health diagnosis being released to homelessness Metro Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) 20 Individuals scoring highest on Continuum of Care the VI-SPDAT Pikes Peak Continuum of Care 5 Individuals scoring highest on the VI-SPDAT Balance of State Continuum of Care 20 Individuals scoring highest on the VI-SPDAT Total 147

Other Initiatives: The Department described other initiatives related to the use of the appropriation from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund.

Stakeholder Outreach: The Department spent the month of June and continues to hold several public meetings as well as attending stakeholder meetings to speak about these funds, the use of the funds, and what to expect with the rollout of this program.

Project-Based Voucher Request for Applications: The Department issued a request for applications for state-funded rental assistance for project-based vouchers in existing housing units to increase Permanent Supportive Housing units and Rapid Re-housing units. The Department received five applications for a total request of 59 units.

Land Acquisition Request for Applications: The Department issued a Request for Applications on September 15, 2017 for the acquisition of land for the future development of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) projects.

The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) Initiative: Founded in 1961, the Vera Institute of Justice is an independent nonprofit national research and policy organization. In May, Vera issued a request for proposals for the Opening Doors to Public Housing Initiative. This Initiative provides for nine months of technical assistance for the planning and implementation of reentry-focused housing programs and assistance with their admissions policies to safely increase access for people with conviction histories. Vera selected DOLA’s Division of Housing as one of six agencies to receive an award. The Vera Institute stated, “Of the seventeen applications we received from public housing authorities in fourteen states, the Division of Housing stood out for the depth of its commitment to policy reform and program implementation, the clarity of its goals for technical assistance, and the range of existing collaborations with local partners.”

Security Deposit Fund for Youth FUP voucher holders: From January 10 through March 20, 39 youth were issued vouchers for the FUP Youth Program. Over half of the youth issued vouchers during this time period were not able to utilize their voucher because they were unable to pay the security deposit. Given this, the Department is allocating funds to aid with security deposits.

30-Nov-2017 63 Local Affairs - brf

4 Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government, Field Services, Program Costs – The Department of Local Affairs is requested to submit a report by September 1, 2018 on the impact of the new field services position added in Grand Junction in FY 2017-18 to assist local communities in responding to the economic impact of energy transformation. The report should identify new business starts, business expansion, number of workers retrained, and public infrastructure investments and dollars leveraged associated with the new position. It should also address whether the Department recommends expansion of this type of position or other approaches for promoting economic development and diversification in rural areas.

COMMENT: This request for information asks the Department to submit a report next September concerning the impact of a position that was requested and approved to be added starting in FY 2017-18.

Background Information – FY 2017-18 R2 Rural Economic Stabilization The Department submitted a request for FY 2017-18 for $104,927 reappropriated funds from energy and mineral impact assistance funds (severance tax and federal mineral lease receipts) to hire 1.0 FTE to coordinate state resources in rural communities. The position is intended to help coordinate resources for rural communities that are economically impacted by closures of major employers such as coal production facilities. The requested funding was approved, with the exception of centrally appropriated amounts, consistent with Committee policy.

The new position will assist local communities in responding to the economic impact of energy transformation in western parts of the state, as well as in other rural areas. The request highlighted Delta and Gunnison counties, which have seen over 750 coal employees laid off, and Moffat, Montrose, Routt, Clear Creek, and Kit Carson counties, where new layoffs had been announced.

The Department proposed hiring a new position, located in Grand Junction, to: o Create a coordinated response for impacted Western Slope communities; o Create a focal point in state government to align state and federal agencies to fund and support local and regional community and economic development priorities; and o Align that funding with job retraining programs.

The goal is to diversify rural economies and create long-term employment opportunities, following a model that has already been employed in Delta, Gunnison, and Rifle. This includes developing a data-driven strategic action plan and then funding prioritized projects designed to have the largest possible impact. The Department indicated that success would be measured based on new business starts, business expansion, number of workers retrained, and public infrastructure investments and dollars leveraged.

30-Nov-2017 64 Local Affairs - brf

APPENDIX D DEPARTMENT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

Pursuant to Section 2-7-205 (1)(a)(I), C.R.S., by November 1 of each year, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting is required to publish an Annual Performance Report for the previous fiscal year for the Department of Local Affairs. This report is to include a summary of the Department’s performance plan and most recent performance evaluation for the designated fiscal year. In addition, pursuant to Section 2-7-204 (3)(a)(I), C.R.S., the Department of Local Affairs is required to develop a Performance Plan and submit the plan for the current fiscal year to the Joint Budget Committee and appropriate Joint Committee of Reference by July 1 of each year.

For consideration by the Joint Budget Committee in prioritizing the Department's FY 2018-19 budget request, the FY 2016-17 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2017-18 Performance Plan dated June 24, 2017 can be found at the following link: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/performancemanagement/department-performance-plans

30-Nov-2017 65 Local Affairs - brf