staff figure setting fy 2020-21 judicial branch · judicial branch jbc working document - subject...

STAFF FIGURE SETTING FY 2020-21

JUDICIAL BRANCH

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

PREPARED BY: STEVE ALLEN, JBC STAFF

MARCH 12, 2020

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 Judicial Branch Overview ................................................................................................................................. 6

Summary of Staff Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 7

Major Differences from the Request ........................................................................................................ 20

Decision Items Affecting Multiple Divisions .............................................................................................. 21

JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments ........................................................................................ 21

JUD R2 Magistrates .................................................................................................................... 21

JUD R12 BA9 Probation procurement, officers, and offender treatment ......................... 23

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments ..................................................................................... 24

JUD R11B BA5 Move and adjust approps for SB 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform) ...... 26

JUD R11B Funding for SB 19-223 (Actions Related to Competency to Proceed) .......... 26

(1) Supreme Court/Court of Appeals ........................................................................................................... 27

Decision Items – Supreme Court/ Court of Appeals............................................................................ 28

Line Item Detail — Supreme Court/ Court of Appeals ....................................................................... 28

(2) Courts Administration ............................................................................................................................... 31

Decision Items – Courts Administration ................................................................................................. 32

JUD R4 BA9 Contract management office ............................................................................. 32

JUD BA3 Executive Assistant to the State Court Administrator ........................................ 33

JUD BA8 Kronos and DocuSign ............................................................................................. 34

JUD R5 Language translators .................................................................................................... 34

JUD R8 BA2 Bridges program ................................................................................................. 35

JUD BA7 2.0 FTE for Human Resources and budget staff................................................. 37

JUD (unnumbered request) Salary survey ............................................................................... 38

JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion.......................................................................... 40

JUD R13 Increase CF approp for Family-friendly Court Program Grants ....................... 40

JUD R10 BA6B IT data center equipment replacement (withdrawn) ................................ 41

BA6A Carr Center debt service reduction .............................................................................. 41

JUD R15 Fleet vehicles .............................................................................................................. 42

JUD R9 BA1 Courthouse Capital ............................................................................................. 42

Line Item Detail – Courts Administration .............................................................................................. 43

(3) Trial Courts ................................................................................................................................................. 76

Decision Items – Trial Courts ................................................................................................................... 77

JUD R7 Class C and D county judge FTE adjustment ......................................................... 77

12-Mar-2019 2 JUD-fig

JUD BA4A Contract Attorney Rate Increase ......................................................................... 77

CDAC R1 District Attorney mandated costs ......................................................................... 78

Line Item Detail – Trial Courts ................................................................................................................. 79

(4) Probation and Related Services ................................................................................................................ 84

Decision Items – Probation and Related Services .................................................................................. 85

JUD R3 – Additional probation officers ................................................................................. 85

JUD R16A Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures - and - Approval of the Correctional Treatment Board Funding Plan ..................................................................................... 85

Line Item Detail – Probation and Related Services ............................................................................... 91

(5) Office of the State Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 98

Decision Items – Office of the State Public Defender .......................................................................... 99

OSPD R1 OSPD staffing needs ............................................................................................... 99

OSPD R2 IT ............................................................................................................................. 104

OSPD R3 social workers ........................................................................................................ 105

OSPD R4 Mandated costs ...................................................................................................... 107

OSPD R5 Leases ...................................................................................................................... 107

OSPD R6 Golden courtroom staffing .................................................................................. 108

Line Item Detail – Office of the State Public Defender .................................................................... 108

(6) Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel ............................................................................................ 117

Decision Items – Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel .............................................................. 118

Multiple agency contractor rate increase .............................................................................. 118

OADC R1 OADC caseload increase .................................................................................... 120

OADC R2 Coordinator of adjunct services ......................................................................... 120

OADC R3 Staff accountant ................................................................................................... 121

OADC R4 Programs analyst .................................................................................................. 122

OADC R5 Operating adjustments ........................................................................................ 122

Salary Increase for the OADC executive director: .............................................................. 123

Line Item Detail – Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel............................................................ 124

(7) Office of the Child’s Representative .................................................................................................... 130

Decision Items – Office of the Child's Representative ...................................................................... 131

OCR R6 Title IV-E Funding - and – ORPC R4 Title IV-E legal representation ........... 131

OCR R1 Caseload/Workload adjustment ............................................................................ 135

OCR R2 New staff attorney ................................................................................................... 135

OCR R3 Common compensation plan ................................................................................ 135

OCR R4 Make deputy director and IS manager full time .................................................. 136


OCR R5 Increase training ....................................................................................................... 137

OCR R7 Court-appointed counsel rate increase ................................................................. 137

Line Item Detail – Office of the Child's Representative .................................................................... 137

(8) Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel ........................................................................................ 143

Decision Items – Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel ......................................................... 144

ORPC R1 Increase in number of and costs per appointment .......................................... 144

ORPC R2 Common compensation plan–Attorneys .......................................................... 144

ORPC R3 Common compensation plan–Other staff ........................................................ 145

ORPC R4 Title IV-E legal representation ............................................................................ 146

ORPC R5 Social work pilot program continuation ............................................................ 146

ORPC R6 Social work coordinator ....................................................................................... 147

ORPC R7 Carrie Ann Lucas fellowship ............................................................................... 148

ORPC R8 Contractor rate increase ....................................................................................... 149

ORPC R9 Operating expenses ............................................................................................... 149

ORPC R10 Training ................................................................................................................ 149

ORPC (unnumbered request) Salary range for ORPC Executive Director .................... 150

Line Item Detail – Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel ....................................................... 150

(9) Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman ...................................................................................... 156

Decision Items – Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman ........................................................ 156

Line Item Detail – Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman ..................................................... 157

(10) Independent Ethics Commission ....................................................................................................... 159

Decision Items – Independent Ethics Commission (None) ............................................................. 159

Line Item Detail – Independent Ethics Commission ......................................................................... 159

(11) Office of Public Guardianship ............................................................................................................ 161

Decision Items – Office of Public Guardianship ................................................................................ 162

Recommended JBC Bill for Office of Public Guardianship ............................................. 162

Staff Initiated: No GF for OPG in FY 2020-21 ................................................................. 163

Line Item Detail – Office of Public Guardianship .............................................................................. 163

Long Bill Footnotes and Requests for Information ............................................................................... 165

Long Bill Footnotes ................................................................................................................................. 165

Requests for Information ........................................................................................................................ 168

Indirect Cost Assessments ........................................................................................................................... 170

Appendix A. Numbers Pages ...................................................................................................................... 173

Appendix B. Budget Saving Opportunities Reported by Judicial Branch Agencies ........................... 174


Main Judicial .............................................................................................................................................. 174

Office of the State Public Defender ...................................................................................................... 175

Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel ............................................................................................. 176

Office of the Child's Representative ...................................................................................................... 177

Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel ......................................................................................... 180

Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman ....................................................................................... 182

Independent Ethics Commission........................................................................................................... 184

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT The Department Overview contains a table summarizing the staff recommended incremental changes followed by brief explanations of each incremental change. A similar overview table is provided for each division, but the description of incremental changes is not repeated, since it is available under the Department Overview. More details about the incremental changes are provided in the sections following the Department Overview and the division summary tables. Decision items, both department-requested items and staff-initiated items, are discussed either in the Decision Items Affecting Multiple Divisions or at the beginning of the most relevant division. Within a section, decision items are listed in the requested priority order, if applicable.


STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT – DOES NOT REPRESENT COMMITTEE DECISION

JUDICIAL BRANCH OVERVIEW One of three branches of Colorado state government, the Judicial Branch primarily interprets and administers the law and resolves disputes. The state court system consists of the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, district courts, the Denver probate and juvenile courts, and all county courts except the Denver county court. Municipal courts and Denver's county court are not part of the state court system and are funded by their respective local governments. The Judicial Branch also supervises juvenile and adult offenders who are sentenced to probation. The Judicial Branch also includes the following independent agencies:

The Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) provides legal representation for indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases where there is a possibility of being jailed or imprisoned. The OSPD is comprised of a central administrative office, an appellate office, and 21 regional trial offices. The OSPD employs about 875 individuals including attorneys, investigators, and support staff.

The Office of Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) oversees the provision of legal representation to indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases when the OSPD has an ethical conflict of interest. This office provides legal representation by contracting with licensed attorneys across the state.

The Office of the Child's Representative (OCR) oversees the provision of legal representation to children and youth involved in the court system, primarily due to abuse, neglect, or delinquency. Generally, the Office provides legal representation by contracting with licensed attorneys across the state.

The Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel (ORPC) oversees the provision of legal representation for indigent parents or guardians who are involved in dependency and neglect proceedings. This office provides legal representation by contracting with licensed attorneys across the state.

The Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman (OCPO) serves as an independent and neutral organization to investigate complaints and grievances about child protection services, make recommendations about system improvements, and serve as a resource for persons involved in the child welfare system.

The Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) hears complaints, issues findings, assesses penalties, and issues advisory opinions on ethics-related matters concerning public officers, state legislators, local government officials, or government employees.

The Office of Public Guardianship (OPG) is a pilot program that provides legal guardianship services for incapacitated and indigent adults in Denver who have no other guardianship prospects.

The Department’s FY 2019-20 appropriation represents approximately 2.5 percent of statewide operating appropriations and 4.8 percent of statewide General Fund appropriations.



SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH

FUNDS REAPPROPRIATED

FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

FY 2019-20 APPROPRIATION

S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $828,444,020 $605,480,938 $168,839,189 $49,698,893 $4,425,000 4,799.4

Other Legislation 12,079,781 10,653,554 1,426,227 0 0 70.4

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 3,968,134 1,562,394 35,000 2,370,740 0 1.0

TOTAL $844,491,935 $617,696,886 $170,300,416 $52,069,633 $4,425,000 4,870.8

FY 2020-21 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATION

FY 2019-20 Appropriation $844,491,935 $617,696,886 $170,300,416 $52,069,633 $4,425,000 4,870.8

JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments (500,000) (500,000) 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R2 Magistrates 2,451,736 2,451,736 0 0 0 24.0

JUD R3 Additional probation officers 1,128,947 1,128,947 0 0 0 15.9

JUD R4 Contract management office 523,746 523,746 0 0 0 6.0

JUD BA3 Executive Assistant for the State Court Administrator

83,057 83,057 0 0 0 1.0

JUD BA8 Kronos and DocuSign software services

654,348 654,348 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R5 Language translators 287,798 287,798 0 0 0 1.0

JUD R8 BA2 Bridges program 380,876 380,876 0 0 0 8.0

JUD BA7 2.0 FTE for Human Resources Division and Budget Office

203,313 203,313 0 0 0 2.0

JUD (unnumbered request) Additional salary survey for courts and probation

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion 473,705 473,705 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R7 Class C and D county judge FTE adjustment

246,197 246,197 0 0 0 1.3

JUD BA4 Contract attorney rate increase 253,659 253,659 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R12 BA9 Probation -- procurement, officers, and treatment

886,244 36,142 760,000 90,102 0 0.0

JUD R13 Increase CF approp for Family-friendly Court Program Grants

44,057 0 44,057 0 0 0.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments (236,529) (46,631) 500,000 (689,898) 0 (9.0)

JUD R10 BA6B IT data center equipment replacement (withdrawn request)

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

JUD BA6A Carr Debt Service Reduction (5,500,000) (500,000) (5,000,000) 0 0 0.0

JUD R15 Fleet vehicles (2,622) (2,622) 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R11B BA5 Move and adjust appropriation for SB 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform)

(6,710) (6,710) 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R11A Funding for SB 19-223 (Actions Related to Competency to Proceed)

173,645 173,645 0 0 0 2.1

JUD R9 BA1 Courthouse capital 3,550,009 3,550,009 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R16A Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures

181,941 0 0 181,941 0 0.0

OSPD R1 Staffing needs 5,482,908 5,482,908 0 0 0 54.7

OSPD R2 IT 754,745 754,745 0 0 0 2.7

OSPD R3 Social workers 551,940 551,940 0 0 0 8.2

OSPD R4 Mandated costs 431,712 431,712 0 0 0 0.0

OSPD R5 Leases 357,103 357,103 0 0 0 0.0

OSPD R6 Golden courtroom staffing 115,941 115,941 0 0 0 1.6

OADC R1 Caseload increase 4,102,615 4,102,615 0 0 0 0.0

OADC R2 Coordinator of adjunct services 110,021 110,021 0 0 0 0.9



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

OADC R3 Staff accountant 104,805 104,805 0 0 0 0.9

OADC R4 Programs analyst 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

OADC R5 BA1 Operating adjustments 67,758 67,758 0 0 0 0.0

OADC R6 COLA-based contractor hourly rate increase

2,383,172 2,383,172 0 0 0 0.0

OADC (Unnumbered request) Salary increase for executive director

9,414 9,414 0 0 0 0.0

OCR R1 Caseload/workload adjustment 728,805 728,805 0 0 0 0.0

OCR R2 New staff attorney 171,858 0 0 171,858 0 1.0

OCR R3 Common compensation plan 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

OCR R4 Make deputy director and IS manager full time

61,776 61,776 0 0 0 0.4

OCR R5 Increase training 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0.0

OCR R6 Title IV-E funding 1,481,902 0 0 1,481,902 0 0.0

OCR R7 Court-appointed counsel rate increase 1,145,367 1,145,367 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R1 BA1 Increase in number of and costs per appointment

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R2 Common compensation plan - attorneys

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R3 Common compensation plan - other staff

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R4 BA2 Title IV-E legal representation 4,741,480 0 0 4,741,480 0 0.0

ORPC R5 Social work pilot program continuation

318,240 318,240 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R6 Social work coordinator 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R7 Carrie Ann Lucas fellowship 173,522 0 0 173,522 0 1.0

ORPC R8 Contractor rate increase 999,670 999,670 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R9 BA3 Operating expenses 14,108 14,108 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R10 Training 41,000 0 13,000 28,000 0 0.0

OCPO R1 Salary increases 35,749 35,749 0 0 0 0.0

OCPO R2 External assistance with communication

42,000 42,000 0 0 0 0.0

OPG Staff initiated: Eliminate GF for OPG for FY 2020-21 only

0 (263,411) 263,411 0 0 0.0

CDAC R1 District attorney mandated costs 109,851 79,851 30,000 0 0 0.0

Centrally appropriated line items 18,154,618 17,451,728 702,890 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation 2,251,897 2,389,081 (137,184) 0 0 37.2

Community Provider Rate 702,986 315,421 311,652 75,913 0 0.0

Non-prioritized requests 44,616 44,616 0 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior budget actions (5,904,028) (2,230,834) (3,282,690) (390,504) 0 14.0

Indirect Cost Adjustment (224,800) 0 (224,800) 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $889,352,103 $662,712,402 $164,280,752 $57,933,949 $4,425,000 5,045.7

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $44,860,168 $45,015,516 ($6,019,664) $5,864,316 $0 174.9

Percentage Change 5.3% 7.3% (3.5%) 11.3% 0.0% 3.6%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $885,545,050 $659,698,301 $163,791,363 $57,630,386 $4,425,000 5,047.9

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation ($3,807,053) ($3,014,101) ($489,389) ($303,563) $0 2.2

The numbering system in the preceding table and elsewhere in this document indicate the agency that submitted the request. Specifically:

"JUD" - Chief Justice concerning courts or probation programs;

"OSPD" - Office of the State Public Defender;

"OADC" - Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel;



"OCR" - Office of the Child's Representative;

"ORPC" - Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel;

"OCPO" - Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman;

"OPG" - Office of Public Guardianship;

"IEC" - Independent Ethics Commission;

"CDAC" - Colorado District Attorneys' Council; and

"STAFF" - a JBC staff initiated recommendation.

Each independent agency submits a separate budget request that is not reviewed or approved by either the Chief Justice or the Governor's Office of State Planning and Budgeting. Thus, it is up to the General Assembly to evaluate the relative merits of the budget initiatives contained in the seven budget requests that are submitted by Judicial Branch agencies.



Requests from the Judicial Department (Courts and Probation) MERIT PAY FOR MOST. In November 2019, most Judicial Branch agencies submitted 2 percent merit pay requests that aligned in dollar amount with the 2 percent salary survey increase requested by executive branch agencies. When the JBC changed this to a 3 percent salary survey increase, staff asked each agency whether it wanted to change its merit pay request to a salary survey request. All but two agencies, the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel and the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman, said they wanted to retain merit pay in a dollar amount equal to a 3 percent salary survey increase. The main Judicial Department also asked for salary survey rather than merit pay for non-judges and top executives with salaries linked to some fraction of a judge’s salary. Requests from the Main Judicial Department (Courts and Probation) The requests from Main Judicial have been sorted in the priority order as determined by the Department, which in some cases does not correspond to the request numbering system. JUD R1 JUDICIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS: The Judicial Department requests that its General Fund appropriations be reduced by $500,000 for FY 2020-21 and subsequent years by reducing its executive management training budget. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R2 MAGISTRATES: The Judicial Department requests $2,451,736 General Fund for 8.0 FTE new magistrates and 16.0 FTE support staff in the eight counties with the biggest county-court staffing shortfalls. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R3 ADDITIONAL PROBATION OFFICERS. The Judicial Department requests $1,128,947 General Fund for 15.9 FTE for Probation Programs for additional probation officers, supervisors, and staff to achieve a statewide staffing level of 89.0 percent. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R4 BA9 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT OFFICE: The Judicial Department requests $523,746 General Fund to add 6.0 FTE who will assist in the procurement and management of Judicial-department contracts statewide. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD BA3 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR: The Judicial Department requests an Executive Assistant for the newly appointed State Court Administrator at a cost of $83,057 General Fund and 1.0 FTE. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD BA8 KRONOS AND DOCUSIGN: The Judicial Department requests $654,348 General Fund to (1) acquire KRONOS Workforce Dimensions, a web-based electronic time keeping system that will integrate with the state’s new HRWorks system and will replace the Department’s aging and failing timekeeping system, and (2) DocuSign, a web-based electronic document signature system. First year costs of KRONOS equal $250,081 for implementation, $78,125 for an implementation manager, and $311,142 of ongoing cost of using KRONOS. DocuSign costs $15,000 annually with no implementation costs. Staff recommends approval of this request.



JUD R5 Language translators: The Judicial Department requests 1.0 FTE and $287,798 General Fund for a court translator FTE for the Translation Department at the Department's main Denver office, which currently has 2.0 FTE translators. Of the total cost, $71,964 is for the new employee and $210,000 is for additional work by contract translators. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R8 BA2 BRIDGES PROGRAM: The Judicial Department requests $380,876 and 8.0 FTE for the Bridges program established by S.B. 18-251 (Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program, often called the “Bridges” Program). These are the components of the request:

$180,876 General Fund and 2.0 FTE to support the Bridges Program,

$200,000 for a quantitative and qualitative program evaluation,

6.0 FTE and no dollars for Court Liaisons positions in districts that can’t secure a satisfactory contract through a community mental health provider for the services of a liaison.

Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD BA7 2.0 FTE FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND BUDGET: The Judicial Department requests $203,313 General Fund and 2.0 FTE for their Human Resources and Budget Office to meet the growing workload need for the Judicial Branch. These FTE would be placed in the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) in Denver. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD (UNNUMBERED REQUEST) SALARY SURVEY: The Judicial Department requests $1,652,028 total funds, comprised of $1,502,423 General Fund and $149,605 cash funds, to increase the pay of 1,100 employees in 21 of its job classes by an average 3.8%. The request reflects recommendations in the Department’s annual salary survey, which is produced by a third-party compensation consulting. The salary increases are in addition to the common policy 3 percent merit increases that the Judicial Department will receive under the JBC’s common policy for salary increases. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion: The State Diversion Advisory Committee, acting through the Judicial Department, requests $473,705 General Fund to increase funding for existing diversion programs across the state and to provide funding to expand a diversion program to an additional district. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R7 Class C and D county judge FTE adjustment: The Judicial Department requests $246,197 General Fund and 1.3 FTE for the Trial Court Programs to fund increased payments to Class C and D county judges (i.e. county judges in small counties) that have resulted from (1) caseload/workload growth and (2) a revision to the methodology used to compute the fractional appointments of county judges in small counties. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD BA4A CONTRACT ATTORNEY RATE INCREASE: The Judicial Department requests $253,659 General Fund for expenditures from its Court Costs, Jury Costs, and Court Appointed Counsel line item for a 5 percent rate increase for the contract attorneys who do work for the Judicial Department. This increase matches the 5 percent rate increase for contract attorneys requested by the Office of Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of Respondent Parent Counsel, and the Office of the Child’s Representative. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R12 BA9 PROBATION -- PROCUREMENT, OFFICERS, AND TREATMENT: This 3-part request



involves $886,244 total funds and $36,142 of General Fund. The Judicial Department requests increased appropriations of

$336,142 total funds ($36,142 from the General Fund) to pay the annual cost of a web-based contracting and procurement system.

Move a $460,000 cash funds appropriation from one line to another and place a new equal size appropriation from a different cash fund on the line that lost the appropriation that moved. The new appropriation will fund additional probation officers.

$90,102 reappropriated funds for several grants from the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund to local Treatment Boards.

Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R13 INCREASE SPENDING AUTHORITY FOR FAMILY-FRIENDLY COURT PROGRAM GRANTS: The Judicial Department requests a $44,057 increase in cash fund appropriations for Family-friendly Court program grants from the Family-friendly Court Program Cash Fund. This increase will help the Department meet the need for court-related child care and for supervised visitation and exchange programs. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R16 BA9 TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS: The Judicial Department requests 10 budget adjustments that are largely technical and together reduce appropriations by $54,588 total funds. The most substantive adjustment reduces General Fund appropriations to the Judicial Department by $46,631 and increases appropriations to the Department of Corrections by an offsetting amount, so there is no change in state-wide General Fund expenditures. Another increases FTE to correct a technical error in the Department’s grant-funded FTE count. Many move appropriations and/or FTE among line items without changing the overall appropriation or number of FTE. Others reduce appropriations and/or the FTE indicated in the Long Bill to more closely match recent expenditures and FTE use. These moves are in most cases designed to increase Long Bill transparency. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R10 BA6B IT DATA CENTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (WITHDRAWN): In its November 1st budget request, the Judicial Department requested $3,304,029 General Fund for the replacement of IT equipment in its data center and its disaster recovery center. Subsequently the Department explored equipment leasing and cloud-based alternatives. While cloud-based alternatives were not competitive, the analysis revealed that equipment leasing is only slightly more expensive over a five-year period. The Department can fund the annual lease costs out of its base appropriation and thus requests withdrawal of R10. JUD R14 BA6A CARR CENTER ADJUSTMENTS: The Judicial Department requests that

The General Fund appropriation that pays part of the debt service expense for the Carr Center be reduced by $500,000 for FY 2020-21 and subsequent years and cash fund payments from the Justice Center Cash fund for debt service be increased by $500,000.

Even with this increase in expenditures from the Justice Center Cash Fund, the debt service appropriation from that fund exceeds the amount that the Department must pay each year. The cash fund appropriation has simply been set too high. The Department asks that this unnecessarily large cash fund appropriation be reduced by $5,000,000.

Staff recommends approval of this request.



JUD R15 FLEET VEHICLES: The Judicial Department requests a net decrease of $2,622 General Fund for vehicle expenses. It requests permission to acquire two leased vehicles that will be used by employees who currently use personal vehicles for Department business and are compensated for that use at the rate of 51¢ per mile. The increased lease costs will be more than offset by reduced payments to employees; the additional vehicles will allow the Department to reduce its vehicle-related expenditures by an estimated $2,622 General Fund. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R11B BA5 Move and adjust appropriation for SB 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform): The Department requests that the cash fund appropriations in S.B. 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform) be reduced by $6,719 and that the appropriation be moved from the Probation Programs line item to the Trial Court Program line item. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R11B FUNDING FOR SB 19-223 (ACTIONS RELATED TO COMPETENCY TO PROCEED): The Judicial Department requests $166,935 General Fund and 2.1 FTE to correct an under appropriation in S.B.19-223. Staff recommends approval of this request. JUD R9 BA1 COURTHOUSE CAPITAL: The Judicial Department requests $3,550,009 General Fund to address required infrastructure and furnishing needs in courthouses in seven counties. Staff recommends approval of this request. Requests from Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) OSPD R1 OSPD STAFFING NEEDS: The OSPD requests 54.7 FTE and $5,482,908, General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualized to 59.6 FTE and $5,467,628 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address staffing and funding requirements necessary to comply with constitutional, statutory and obligations for indigent defense. When fully staffed, the request includes 36.0 Deputy State Public Defenders, 12.0 Investigators, 9.0 Administrative Assistants and 2.6 Central Office. Staff recommends approval of this request. OSPD R2 IT: The OSPD requests 2.7 FTE and $754,745 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 3.0 FTE and $674,975 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address staffing and funding requirements necessary to support information technology (IT) needs for the Office. Staff recommends approval of this request. OSPD R3 SOCIAL WORKERS: The OSPD requests 8.2 FTE and $551,940 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 9.0 FTE and $543,530 for FY 2021-22 and on-going. The request would fund 1.0 Supervising Social Worker and 8.0 Licensed Social Workers. Staff recommends approval of this request. OSPD R4 MANDATED COSTS: The OSPD requests an additional $431,712 General Fund for its Mandated Costs line item for FY 2020-21 and $519,402 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years. Staff recommends approval of this request. OSPD R5 LEASES: The OSPD requests $357,103 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to $563,624 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, for lease expense that are increasing due to Colorado’s tighter office market. Staff recommends approval of this request.



OSPD R6 GOLDEN COURTROOM STAFFING: The OSPD requests 1.6 FTE and $115,941 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 1.6 FTE and $103,541 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address staffing and funding needs for an additional criminal court in the 1st Judicial District. Staff recommends approval of this request. Requests from Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) OADC R1 CASELOAD INCREASE: The OADC requests $4,102,615 General Fund for the Agency’s projected caseload increase for FY 2020-21. The agency projects that its caseload will rise 10.5%. Staff recommends approval of this request. OADC R2 COORDINATOR OF ADJUNCT SERVICES: The OADC requests $110,021 General Fund and 0.9 FTE to hire a Coordinator of Adjunct Services who will coordinate the work of the contract investigators, paralegals, legal researchers, social workers, and case assistants who work in conjunction with OADC contract attorneys to defend clients. (JBC staff has adjusted this request for the paydate shift.) Staff recommends approval of this request. OADC R3 STAFF ACCOUNTANT: The OADC requests $104,805 and 0.9 FTE to add a Staff Accountant, a position that will assist with what the OADC describes as overburdened areas within the Financial Division. (JBC staff has adjusted this request for the paydate shift.) Staff recommends approval of this request. R4 PROGRAMS ANALYST: The OADC requests 0.9 FTE and $115,021 General Fund to add a Programs Analyst and $5,000 General Fund for an online analytics software program to be used by the analyst. (JBC staff has adjusted this request for the paydate shift.) The OADC says that it needs this individual to increase its ability to perform essential analysis of the available data for oversight, evaluations, and forecasting functions. Staff does not recommend this request. OADC R5 OPERATING ADJUSTMENTS: The OADC requests $67,758 General Fund for operating expenses for FY 2020-21. The request includes $40,000 for an office buildout that will be necessary if three new OADC employees are approved during figure setting. The buildout expense will need to be adjusted if fewer than three are approved. Staff recommends approval of this request. OADC R6 COLA-BASED CONTRACTOR HOURLY RATE INCREASE: The OADC requests $2,383,172 General Fund for a 5 percent rate increase for its contractors. This request is the subject of the first Issue. Staff recommends approval of this request. OADC (unnumbered request from OADC Commission) Salary Increase for the OADC executive director: (This request comes directly from the Office of the Alternative Defense Counsel Commission, which oversees the OADC). The Commission requests that the salary of the Executive Director of the OADC be set equal to the salary of the State Public Defender, which requires a $9,414 General Fund appropriation. Staff recommends approval of this request.



Requests from Office of the Childs Representative (OCR) OCR R1 CASELOAD/WORKLOAD ADJUSTMENT: The OCR requests an increase of $728,805 General Fund for its Court Appointed Counsel (CAC) appropriation to pay for a projected increase in its caseload and workload. Staff recommends approval of this request. OCR R2 NEW STAFF ATTORNEY: The OCR requests $171,858 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for an additional Staff Attorney who will sustain and expand OCR’s programming, litigation support, and oversight for contract attorneys. Staff recommends approval of this request with a different funding source. OCR R3 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN: The OCR requests an additional $53,230 General Fund to increase the salaries and benefits of three of its employees who, it believes, are paid less than similar employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. Staff does not recommend this request. OCR R4 MAKE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND IS MANAGER FULL TIME. The OCR requests $61,776 General Fund and 0.4 FTE so that the FTE allocation and pay for its Deputy Director and its IS Manager can both be increased from 0.8 FTE to 1.0 FTE, thus converting both from part time to full time. Staff recommends approval of this request. OCR R5 Increase training: The OCR requests $20,000 General Fund for training of its contractors. Staff recommends approval of this request. OCR R6 TITLE IV-E FUNDING: The OCR requests authorization to spend up to $1,481,902 of Reappropriated Title IV-E funds received from the Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to S.B. 19-258. Staff recommends approval of this request. OCR R7 COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL RATE INCREASE: In conjunction with the OADC and the ORPC, the OCR requests $1,145,367 General Fund to increase the hourly rate paid to its contract attorneys, social service professionals (SSPs), and paralegals by 5 percent. Staff recommends approval of this request. Requests from the Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel (ORPC) ORPC R1 NO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF AND COSTS PER APPOINTMENT: The ORPC is currently forecasting that its current appropriation (i.e. its FY 2019-20 appropriation) is sufficient to pay the costs of court-appointed counsel and mandated costs in FY 2020-21 if there is no rate increase for contractors. This was a real request when submitted last fall, but the supplemental increase approved in January makes it unnecessary. ORPC R2 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN–ATTORNEYS: The ORPC requests $45,041 to increase the salary and benefits of four attorneys on its staff who, it believes, are paid less than similar attorney employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ORPC R3 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN–OTHER STAFF: The ORPC requests $55,575 to increase the salary and benefits of four non-attorney staff members who, the ORPC believes, are



paid less than similar employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ORPC R4 TITLE IV-E LEGAL REPRESENTATION: The ORPC requests authorization to spend up to $4,741,480 of Reappropriated Title IV-E funds received, pursuant to S.B. 19-258, from the Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS), which in turn receives them as matching funds from the Federal Government for the Title IV-E representation performed by the ORCP. Staff recommends approval of this request. ORPC R5 SOCIAL WORK PILOT PROGRAM CONTINUATION: The ORPC requests $318,240 General Fund to continue its Social Worker Pilot Program, which has been operating in three judicial districts. Because of small sample sizes as well as incomplete data for some years and locations, a study of the pilot’s effectiveness is best described at this time as promising but inconclusive. Staff recommends approval of this request for one year coupled with a request that the ORPC explore the feasibility of supporting it with Title IV-E funding in the future. ORPC R6 SOCIAL WORK COORDINATOR: The ORPC requests 1.0 FTE and $130,826 General Fund increase to create the position of Social Worker Outreach Coordinator. Staff recommends that this request not be approved. ORPC R7 CARRIE ANN LUCAS FELLOWSHIP: The ORPC requests 1.0 FTE and $173,522 General Fund to create the Carrie Ann Lucas Fellowship, named after Carrie Ann Lucas, an advocate for disabled parents who worked for the ORPC, was herself disabled, and died last February. The Carrie Ann Lucas Fellow will be a permanent staff attorney for the ORPC. Staff recommends approval of this request with a changed funding source. ORPC R8 CONTRACTOR RATE INCREASE: The ORPC requests $999,670 General Fund for a 5% increase of the hourly rates paid to contract attorneys, paralegals, investigators, family advocates, and social workers. Staff recommends approval of this request. ORPC R9 Operating expenses: The ORPC requests $14,108 General Fund for increased operating expenses. Staff recommends approval of this request. ORPC R10 Training: The ORPC requests that its appropriation for training be increased by $41,000 total funds, comprised of $28,000 General Fund and $13,000 cash funds. Staff recommends approval of this request. Establish a salary range for the ORPC Executive Director. The governing commission of the ORPC requests that the JBC establish a salary range for the ORPC Executive Director. The lower end of this range is the current salary of the ORPC Executive Director. The upper end is the current salary of the State Public Defender. The apparent intent is to allow the Commission to set the Director’s salary within this range and use that ability to incentivize superb work. Staff does not recommend approval of this request. Requests from Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman (OCPO) OCPO R1 SALARY INCREASES: The OCPO requests $35,749 General Fund to increase the salaries of six of the eight people it employs. Staff recommends approval of this request.



OCPO R2 EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE WITH COMMUNICATION: The OCPO requests $42,000 General Fund on an ongoing basis to engage a local communications firm that will help it connect with outside stakeholders and citizens and help make them aware of the CPO’s services, its findings, and the guidance it provides. Staff recommends approval of this request. Requests from the Colorado District Attorneys' Council CDAC R1 DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANDATED COSTS: The Colorado District Attorney’s Council requests a 3.2 percent increase of its General Fund appropriation for Mandated Costs. It also requests that its Cash Fund appropriation for Mandated Costs be increased by $30,000, which will enable it to spend additional cash fund revenue that it expects to receive next year. Staff recommends approval of this request. CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS: Staff recommends $8,860,946 total funds ($8,159,213 General

CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS

REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS

FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

Merit pay adjustment (= 3% across the board SS) $9,397,937 $8,853,470 $544,467 $0 $0 0.0

Health, life, and dental 3,200,784 3,120,413 80,371 0 0 0.0

Salary survey for judges (3% across the board) 2,252,909 2,252,909 0 0 0 0.0

SAED adjustment 1,389,605 1,384,480 5,125 0 0 0.0

AED adjustment 1,217,704 1,212,579 5,125 0 0 0.0

CORE adjustment 659,607 659,607 0 0 0 0.0

Payments to OIT adjustment 636,870 636,870 0 0 0 0.0

Salary survey adjustment 44,280 30,335 13,945 0 0 0.0

Short-term disability adjustment 17,618 17,105 513 0 0 0.0

Legal services adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

PERA Direct Distribution (390,894) (444,238) 53,344 0 0 0.0

Payment to risk management / property funds adjustment

(212,315) (212,315) 0 0 0 0.0

Workers’ compensation adjustment (59,487) (59,487) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $18,154,618 $17,451,728 $702,890 $0 $0 0.0

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION: The request includes the following adjustments for annualization of prior year legislation:

ANNUALIZE PRIOR LEGISLATION

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS


FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

SB 18-200 PERA $1,828,730 $1,740,731 $0 $0 $87,999 0.0

SB 19-043 Increase number of district court judges 500,159 500,159 0 0 0 27.2

HB 19-1263 Offense level for controlled substance possession

433,809 433,809 0 0 0 7.2

SB 19-108 JUD BA5 FY 20-21 cost 232,790 232,790 0 0 0 0.0

HB 19-1229 Preservation of abandoned estate documents 153,377 153,377 0 0 0 0.3

HB 19-1177 Extreme risk protection orders 119,392 119,392 0 0 0 0.0

SB 19-108 Juvenile justice reform 275 275 0 0 0 0.0

SB 19-108 JUD BA5 Subtract FY 19-20 supplemental cost (283,340) (283,340) 0 0 0 0.0



ANNUALIZE PRIOR LEGISLATION

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS


FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

HB 19-1310 Interest on orders of restitution (220,480) 0 0 0 (220,480) 0.0

SB 19-223 Competency to proceed (182,027) (182,027) 0 0 0 0.6

HB 19-1045 Office of Public Guardianship (163,589) (163,589) 0 0 0 1.5

SB 19-036 Court Reminder Program (94,308) (94,308) 0 0 0 0.0

SB 19-030 Remeding improper guilty pleas (65,926) (65,926) 0 0 0 0.3

HB 19-1275 Criminal record sealing (4,428) 275 0 0 (4,703) 0.0

HB 19-1316 Modernize marriage laws for minors (2,250) (2,250) 0 0 0 0.0

SB 18- 203 Conflict Free Representation in Municipal Courts

(287) (287) 0 0 0 0.1

TOTAL $2,251,897 $2,389,081 $0 $0 ($137,184) 37.2

COMMUNITY PROVIDER RATE: The request includes $702,986 total funds for the Community Provider Rate: NON-PRIORITIZED REQUESTS: The request includes the following non-prioritized decision items:

NON-PRIORITIZED REQUESTS

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS


FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

NP01- FY21 OIT Budget Packet $73,450 $73,450 $0 $0 $0 0.0

NP1 Vehicle lease payments adjustment

(14,751) (14,751) 0 0 0 0.0

OSPD NP BA1 Vehicle Lease (14,083) (14,083) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $44,616 $44,616 $0 $0 $0 0.0

ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET ACTIONS: The request includes the following adjustments for annualization of prior year budget actions:

ANNUALIZE PRIOR BUDGET ACTIONS

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS


FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

JUD BA1 Supplemental Courthouse Furnishings and Infrastructure Maintenance

$1,475,522 $1,475,522 $0 $0 $0 0.0

FY 19-20 JUD R2 Add probation officers and supporting staff 1,195,454 1,195,454 0 0 0 12.5

FY 19-20 OSPD R2 Refinance Denver criminal court grant 15,496 15,496 0 0 0 0.3

FY 19-20 ORPC R2 Staff attorney 6,012 6,012 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 ORPC R4 Programs Analyst 3,733 3,733 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OSPD R4 IT security 3,686 3,686 0 0 0 0.1

FY 19-20 ORPC R3 Administrative Specialist 3,064 3,064 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 JUD R4 Audio visual technical staff and administrative support

2,258 2,258 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 ORPC R5 Compensation plan alignment 166 166 0 0 0 0.0

FY 2019-20 Salary survey 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

JUD BA2Annualize 1.0 FTE added in suppl to 2.0 FTE 0 0 0 0 0 1.0

FY 19-20 JUD R10 and BA5 Courthouse capital (4,135,390) (4,135,390) 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R14M Carr Center maintenance adjustment (3,600,000) 0 (3,100,000) (500,000) 0 0.0

FY 17-18 ORPC BA2 Social Worker Pilot Program (302,640) (302,640) 0 0 0 0.0

Eliminate 1-time approp for District attorney mandated costs supplemental

(167,920) (137,920) (30,000) 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OADC R3 Operating expense adjustment (106,500) (106,500) 0 0 0 0.0



ANNUALIZE PRIOR BUDGET ACTIONS

TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUND

CASH FUNDS


FEDERAL FUNDS

FTE

JUD R14LD Carr Center lease and debt service adjustment (104,331) (61,137) (152,690) 109,496 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OCR R2 Two programs and compliance analyst positions

(90,598) (90,598) 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 JUD R5 Distance learning specialists (60,677) (60,677) 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OCR R4 Increase Operating Appropriation (22,857) (22,857) 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 JUD R7 Centralized Legal Research Team (13,374) (13,374) 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OADC R2 Social worker outreach coordinator (3,473) (3,473) 0 0 0 0.0

FY 19-20 OSPD R3 Arapahoe courtroom staffing (1,658) (1,658) 0 0 0 0.1

FY 19-20 Merit pay (1) (1) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL ($5,904,028) ($2,230,834) ($3,282,690) ($390,504) $0 14.0

INDIRECT COST ADJUSTMENTS: The request includes a reduction of $224,800 for indirect cost assessments:



MAJOR DIFFERENCES FROM THE REQUEST

DIFFERENCES FROM THE REQUEST

DECISION ITEM REQUEST RECOMMENDATION


$1,652,028 0

OADC R4 Programs analyst 117,653 0

OCR R2 New Staff Attorney 171,858 171,858 RF

OCR R3 Common compensation plan 53,230 0

ORPC R2 Common compensation plan - attorneys 81,043 0

ORPC R3 Common compensation plan - other staff 55,575 0

ORPC R6 Social work coordinator 130,826 0

ORPC R7 Carrie Ann Lucas fellowship 173,522 173,522 RF

ORPC R10 Training 28,000 28,000 RF

OPG Staff initiated: Eliminate GF for OPG for FY 2020-21 only 263,411 0

Total $2,727,146 $373,380 RF



DECISION ITEMS AFFECTING MULTIPLE DIVISIONS

JUD R1 JUDICIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests budget adjustments that together reduce General Fund appropriations by $1,000,000 and reduce cash fund appropriations by $5,000,000: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request Training reduction. The Department requests that its General Fund appropriations be reduced by $500,000 for FY 2020-21 and subsequent years, a reduction achieved by (1) reducing expenditures for its executive management training program by $480,000 total funds, comprised of reductions of $23,944 General Fund and $456,056 cash funds from the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund. It will then use the freed cash funds from the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund to replace $456,056 of General Fund that is currently appropriated to the Trial Courts program. The Trial Courts Program has a large appropriation from the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund and this will enlarge that appropriation. The combined General Fund reduction is $480,000. In addition the Department will reduce its General Fund appropriation for General Courts Administration by $20,000, taking the reductions in unspecified places. ANALYSIS: Training reduction. The controversy in the Office of the State Court Administrator last summer and the resulting resignation of top managers, raised concerns about excessive training expenditures. (For more information about these events, see response JUD 6 in the December 13, 2019 Judicial Branch Hearing Response document.) In the wake of this controversy, the Department requests that its appropriation for Judicial Education and Training be reduced by a third from its current level of $1.5 million. The reduction will occur the Department’s executive management training program. This reduction accounts for half the General Fund decrease in this decision item.

JUD R2 MAGISTRATES REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $2,451,736 General Fund for 8.0 FTE new magistrates and 16.0 FTE support staff (each magistrate is provided two court judicial assistants as support staff). The request adds judicial officers in the eight counties with the most critical need for county court judicial officers as shown in the following table. All of these counties are less than 85 percent fully staffed, based on the Department's court staffing model. In the second year, the cost is $2,119,675 General Fund.

JUD R2 REQUEST FOR MAGISTRATES

COUNTY FY 19-20 ACTUAL

JUDICIAL

OFFICERS

FY 19-20 JUDICIAL

OFFICERS NEEDED BASED

ON STAFFING MODEL

JUDICIAL

OFFICER

SHORT- FALL

NUMBER OF

MAGISTRATES

REQUESTED

CURRENT COUNTY COURT STAFFING %

Adams 10.00 13.29 (3.29) 2.0 75.3%

Weld 5.00 6.34 (1.34) 1.0 78.8%

Larimer 5.52 6.97 (1.45) 1.0 79.2%


http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2020-21_judhrg.pdf

http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2020-21_judhrg.pdf


JUD R2 REQUEST FOR MAGISTRATES

COUNTY FY 19-20 ACTUAL

JUDICIAL

OFFICERS

FY 19-20 JUDICIAL

OFFICERS NEEDED BASED

ON STAFFING MODEL

JUDICIAL

OFFICER

SHORT- FALL

NUMBER OF

MAGISTRATES

REQUESTED

CURRENT COUNTY COURT STAFFING %

Jefferson 9.50 11.80 (2.30) 1.0 80.5%

El Paso 12.85 15.92 (3.07) 1.0 80.7%

Arapahoe 10.00 12.09 (2.09) 1.0 82.7%

Mesa 3.50 4.20 (0.70) 0.5 83.3%

Pueblo 3.50 4.19 (0.69) 0.5 83.6%

Total 59.9 74.8 (14.93) 8.0 80.0%

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed this request in the third issue in the JBC Staff Budget Briefing FY 2020-21 for the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Department periodically conducts staffing studies. During the study period, judicial officers (judges and magistrates) record the time it takes to complete the work associated with various types of cases. Based on this analysis, the Department establishes standards for the amount of time it takes an average judge or magistrate to handle each type of case. The Department then computes how much time it would take an average judicial officer to do the work associated with the projected caseload for his or her court. If a judicial officer working 40 hours per week has 85 percent of the amount of time the average judicial officer would need to complete this work, the court is 85 percent staffed. In 2018, the Department conducted a county-court staffing study, the first time it had done so since 2011. The updated study showed that the amount of time it takes a judicial officer to deal with most type of county-court cases has increased, sometimes dramatically. The study showed that the overall staffing percentage for counties of moderate to large size had fallen from about 90 percent in 2011 to 80 percent today. The Judicial Department's most recent workload study for county judicial officers can be reversed engineered to determine the number of hours that the average county court judge or magistrate works in weeks in which there are no holidays, vacation, or sick leave. The following chart shows the relationship.


http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2020-21_judbrf.pdf

http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2020-21_judbrf.pdf


This request will provide magistrates to counties that are on average 80 percent staffed. The preceding graph shows that the judicial officers in these counties are currently working an average of 48.4 hours per week in weeks without holidays or leave – i.e. 6 eight hour days or 5 ten hour days. In Adams, the most understaffed county, the average county judicial officer is working about 51 hours per week. Eight additional judicial officers will increase the staffing percentage to 90.7 percent, which means that the average judicial officer will work about 43 hours per week The Department states that a request for 8.0 county court judges, rather than 8.0 magistrates, would cost approximately $692,115 more in FY 2020-21 than this request. With judges, the salaries (including PERA and Medicare) would be $192,964 higher; capital outlay $335,920 higher, and operating $163,231 higher.

JUD R12 BA9 PROBATION PROCUREMENT, OFFICERS, AND OFFENDER TREATMENT REQUEST: This 3-part request includes $36,142 of General Fund appropriations. The three are unrelated and can be approved or disapproved separately. The Judicial Department requests increased appropriations of

$336,142 total funds (comprised of $36,142 from the General Fund and $300,000 cash funds from the Offender Services Fund) on the IT Infrastructure line item, to pay the annual cost of a web-based contracting and procurement system from Ivalua that is used primarily by the Probation Division to deal with its 1000 plus contractors.

$460,000 cash funds from the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund on the Offender Treatment and Services line item, accompanied by two offsetting cash-fund changes on the Probation Programs line item: a reduced appropriation of $460,000 from the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund and an increased appropriation of $460,000 from the Offender Services Fund. These changes accomplish two things: (1) they move a statutorily-required $460,000 payment that the Department makes to Denver each year from the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund to a

50.648.4

43.7 40.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Ho

urs

wo

ked

in

wee

ks

wit

ho

ut

ho

liday

s o

r le

ave

Staffing Percentage

Judicial officer hours worked per week

Current Adams County hours Current average

hours in requested counties Average hours if

request is approvedAverage hours with 100% staffing


https://www.ivalua.com/


new line item where it is combined with similar appropriations that are also transferred; and (2) the Department will have an additional $462,309 of cash funds available from the Offender Services Fund which it will use to employ more probation officers. The Department does not need increased FTE on the Probation Programs line item because current appropriations are insufficient to employ the indicated number of FTE.

$90,102 reappropriated funds on the Offender Treatment and Services line item to account for several grants from the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund to local Treatment Boards that the local boards are passing on to the probation offices in their judicial districts. This money is appropriated on the Appropriation to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund line item, reappropriated on the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures line item, and with this request, reappropriated on the Offender Treatment and Services line item.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these requests. ANALYSIS:

The first bullet deals with the acquisition of a web-based contracting and procurement system from Ivalua that is used primarily by the Probation Division but is also used by other parts of the Department. In Fiscal Year 2019, the Department selected a provider to deliver a cloud-based procure-to-pay (P2P) solution to automate and streamline the issuance, delivery and invoicing of probation services agreement and non-agreement orders through a single system. The selected system is designed to automate the prior paper voucher process by enabling probation staff to create a digital voucher that is then sent to the service provider. The provider accesses their vouchers through the web, performs the service, details the date of service and then submits that voucher back to the department as an invoice. The invoices are eventually exported and uploaded to CORE for payment. The procure-to-pay system will initially have about 1,000 participating vendors. In addition, there will be over 1,000 Judicial Department staff using the system to issue requisitions for goods and services. Most of the activity within the system will focus on probation offender treatment and services (approximately 220,000 payments annually); however, the Department will expand the use of the system to other general operating expenditure needs including information technology expenses at the Office of the State Court Administrator.

The second bullet is a clever way to adjust appropriations to increase the number of probation officers while using available cash funds and current FTE allocations.

The third bullet is technical in nature and relates to the provision of treatment to probationers. In this case the term “technical” means that the minimal benefit the Committee would get from an explanation is tiny compared to the complexity and length of the explanation.

JUD R16 BA9 TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests 10 budget adjustments that are, for the most part, designed to increase Long Bill transparency. The requests are unrelated and can be approved or


https://www.ivalua.com/


disapproved separately. On net, the changes reduce General Fund (GF) appropriations by $46,631 but there is no real GF decrease because the request asks that $46,631 of GF appropriated to the Judicial Department and then transferred as reappropriated funds to the Department of Corrections (DOC) be replaced with a direct GF appropriation to the DOC. A. In the Department of Corrections (5) Community Services, (A) Parole Subprogram, Parolee

Supervision and Support Services appropriation the Reappropriated Funds letter note “a” states that “$46,631 shall be transferred from the General Fund appropriation to the Offender Treatment and Services line item in the Probation and Related Services section”. The Judicial Department requests that this General Fund be directly appropriated to DOC, eliminating an unnecessary transfer and needless accounting work.

B. Add 1.0 FTE to the General Courts Administration line to fix a Long Bill technical error. This FTE was inadvertently omitted during figure setting last year. Funding for this FTE comes from grant sources.

C. Move 3.0 FTE and the $231,000 of General Fund that support them from the Appellate Court Programs line to the Law Library line. This more accurately reflects Library staffing since the 3.0 FTE, though appropriated to the Appellate Court Program, actually work in the Law Library.

D. Move $17,268 General Fund from the Problem-solving Courts line to the Law Library line to provide additional funding for the 3.0 FTE who were moved to the Law Library line.

E. Move 6.9 FTE and $618,038 General Fund from the Problem-Solving Courts line to the Trial Courts Program Line. Move $71,332 cash funds in the opposite direction. Explanation: In FY 2018-19 the Judicial Department requested, and the Joint Budget Committee approved the transfer of 14.0 Probation Officer FTE and $942,689 General Fund from the Problem-solving Courts line to the Probation Programs line. These staff were not exclusive to the Problem-solving Courts and many were split positions that has had responsibilities elsewhere. These split responsibilities imposed an undue administrative burden. For FY 2020-21, the Department requests the transfer of 6.9 FTE from the Problem-solving Courts line to the Trial Courts Program line. Again, a number of these positions are split funded, which poses an administrative burden on the person and the program as it requires dual leave slip submissions, dual performance evaluations and other inefficient administrative practices. This request would leave only Problem-solving Court Coordinators and peer mentor coordinators on the Problem-solving Courts line.

F. Move 0.5 cash-funded FTE from the Family Friendly Court Program line item to the General Courts Administration line item. This 0.5 FTE is in-fact funded by the appropriation in the General Courts Administration line because revenues of the Family Friendly Cash Fund are insufficient to support the 0.5 FTE and also sustain a viable grant program. This move puts the FTE on the line from which the FTE is paid.

G. Move 1.0 FTE from the Trial Courts Program line to Appellate Court Programs line. In the fall of 2019, the shared functions involving the Supreme Court Clerks’ office and the Colorado Court of Appeals Clerks’ office were severed, and the shared FTE went to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals Clerks office now needs an additional Court Judicial Assistant to keep up with its workload. The Court will fund this position from the savings recognized by the retirement of two Staff Attorneys that were at the top of the Staff Attorney range and have been replaced with Staff Attorneys at the range minimum. There is an unused appropriation of 1.0 FTE in the Trial Courts line that the Judicial Department requests be transferred from Trial Courts to Appellate Courts Program line.

H. Increase the Cash Fund Spending authority for the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel by $500,000 to more accurately reflect actual spending. This appropriation is continuously appropriated under the Judicial Department’s constitutional authority.



I. Reduce by $900,000 and 10.0 FTE the reappropriated-funds appropriation that appears on the S.B. 91-094 Juvenile Justice Services line. The reduction will make the appropriation more closely match program expenditures. The FY 2019-20 appropriation is $2,496,837 and 25.0 FTE. These reappropriated funds are transferred from the Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these requests.

JUD R11B BA5 MOVE AND ADJUST APPROPS FOR SB 19-108 (JUVENILE JUSTICE

REFORM) REQUEST: The Department requests that the cash fund appropriations in S.B. 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform) be reduced by $6,719 and that the appropriation be moved from the Probation Programs line item to the Trial Court Program line item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Senate Bill 19-108 contains a $68,598 General Fund, 0.8 FTE appropriation for FY 2019-20 to the Probation Programs line item within the Judicial Department. The amount was correct, but the appropriation should have been to the Trial Court Program line item. With this request, the Judicial Department is requesting that the FY 2020-21 appropriation be adjusted to the amount indicated in the fiscal note and moved from the Probation Programs line item to the Trial Court Program line item. Though this request deals with is a small negative adjustment flowing from a technical problem, Staff remains concerned about the cost of S.B. 19-108 (Juvenile Justice Reform, Sen. Lee; Gardner; Rep. Michaelson Jenet; Soper). The bill’s fiscal note states that it will have costs of at least $346,940 in FY 2020-21. In January the Committee approved a supplemental for implementation of the bill of $283,340 in FY 2019-20, annualizing to $232,790 in FY 2020-21. That’s $516,130 of appropriations for the Judicial branch that were not in the Fiscal Note. Staff believes there will be more.

JUD R11B FUNDING FOR SB 19-223 (ACTIONS RELATED TO COMPETENCY TO

PROCEED) REQUEST: This bill contains an appropriation clause for FY 2020-21 that is inconsistent with the final Legislative Council staff fiscal note. The department requests an appropriation of $173,645 General Fund and 2.1 FTE to correct the deficiency. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The difference is due to procedural considerations rather than legislative disagreement with the costs identified in the fiscal note. The bill was introduced in the House on April 25, 2019 and passed unamended through the House Judiciary Committee on April 26th. On April 27 the House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to adopt an amendment that revised the appropriations clause so that it would be consistent with the revised Fiscal Note available on that



date. Given the limited time left in the legislative session and the number of bills remaining on the Senate calendar, a return trip to the Senate to resolve differences between the houses could have jeopardize passage. So when the bill came up for second reading in the House on April 29, bill sponsor Rep. Weissman moved that the House reject the Appropriations Committee Report to avoid a trip back to the Senate. The bill then passed House second and third reading unamended and was later signed into law.

Had the House Appropriations Committee amendment to S.B. 19-223 survived, the bill would have contained a FY 2019-20 appropriation to the Judicial Department that was $173,645 General Fund and 2.1 FTE higher. With this request, the Judicial Department asks for an appropriation of the FY 2020-21 General Fund and FTE annualization of the FY 2019-20 appropriation that should have been in that bill.

(1) SUPREME COURT/COURT OF APPEALS This section provides funding for the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, and its decisions are binding on the Court of Appeals and all county and district courts. Requests to review decisions of the Court of Appeals constitute the majority of the Supreme Court's filings. The Supreme Court also has direct appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a statute has been held to be unconstitutional, cases involving the Public Utilities Commission, writs of habeas corpus,1 cases involving adjudication of water rights, summary proceedings initiated under the Elections Code, and prosecutorial appeals concerning search and seizure questions in pending criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court also oversees the regulation of attorneys and the practice of law. The Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who serve renewable 10-year terms. The Chief Justice, selected by the justices of the Court, is the executive head of the Department.2 Created by statute, the Court of Appeals is generally the first court to hear appeals of judgments and orders in criminal, juvenile, civil, domestic relations, and probate matters. The Court of Appeals also has initial jurisdiction to review actions and decisions of several state agencies, boards, and commissions. Its determination of an appeal is final unless the Colorado Supreme Court agrees to review the matter. The Court of Appeals is currently composed of 22 judges who serve renewable 8-year terms3. Sources of cash funds include the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund and various fees and cost recoveries.

SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

FY 2019-20 Appropriation

1 A "writ of habeas corpus" is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. 2 See Article VI, Sections 2 through 8, Colorado Constitution; and Section 13-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. 3 See Section 13-4-101 et seq., C.R.S.



SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $27,053,858 $15,608,944 $11,372,017 $72,897 $0 219.5

TOTAL $27,053,858 $15,608,944 $11,372,017 $72,897 $0 219.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $27,053,858 $15,608,944 $11,372,017 $72,897 $0 219.5

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 517,268 17,268 500,000 0 0 1.0

Annualize prior legislation 72,522 71,581 941 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior budget actions 475,211 475,211 0 0 0 0.0

Indirect Cost Adjustment 27,105 0 27,105 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $28,145,964 $16,173,004 $11,900,063 $72,897 $0 220.5

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $1,092,106 $564,060 $528,046 $0 $0 1.0

Percentage Change 4.0% 3.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $28,118,859 $16,173,004 $11,872,958 $72,897 $0 220.5

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation

($27,105) $0 ($27,105) $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – SUPREME COURT/ COURT OF APPEALS The appropriation for this division is affected by JUD R7, Centralized legal research team, which is presented in the section of this document titled Decision Items Affecting Multiple Divisions.

LINE ITEM DETAIL — SUPREME COURT/ COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLATE COURT PROGRAMS This line item includes funding for both personal services and operating expenses. It also includes funding to purchase volumes of the Colorado Reporter, the official publication of opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, for distribution to various state offices, including district and county judges’ offices, county court law libraries, district attorneys’ offices, and state libraries. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Article VI of the State Constitution [Vestment of judicial power]; Section 13-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. [Supreme Court]; Section 13-2-125, C.R.S. [Colorado Reporter] Section 13-4-101 et seq., C.R.S. [Court of Appeals] REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $15,762,114, including $15,690,114 General Fund and $72,000 cash funds from various fees and cost recoveries, and 141.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, APPELLATE COURT PROGRAMS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $15,465,637 $15,393,637 $72,000 $0 $0 143.0



SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, APPELLATE COURT PROGRAMS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

TOTAL $15,465,637 $15,393,637 $72,000 $0 $0 143.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $15,465,637 $15,393,637 $72,000 $0 $0 143.0



JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments (231,000) (231,000) 0 0 0 (2.0)

TOTAL $15,762,114 $15,690,114 $72,000 $0 $0 141.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $296,477 $296,477 $0 $0 $0 (2.0)

Percentage Change 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (1.4%)

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $15,762,114 $15,690,114 $72,000 $0 $0 141.0

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL This informational line item reflects anticipated expenditures related to the regulation of the practice of law. These activities are supported by cash funds from attorney registration fees and law examination application fees. This line item is shown for informational purposes only, as these funds are continuously appropriated under the Judicial Branch’s constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of law. These expenditures support three types of activities:

Administration of the Colorado bar exam by the State Board of Law Examiners administers.

Administration of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys and judicial officers by the Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education.

Investigation of alleged attorney misconduct. A Client Protection Fund compensates persons who suffer certain monetary losses because of an attorney's dishonest conduct.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 1 of Article VI of the State Constitution [Vestment of judicial power]; Section 13-2-119, C.R.S. [Disposition of fees] REQUEST: The request reflects $11,168,712 cash funds and 70.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Department’s informational appropriation request.

LAW LIBRARY The Supreme Court Library is a public library located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center. The library is supported by appellate filing and other fees deposited in the Supreme Court Library Fund. The cash funds in this line item are shown for informational purposes only, as these funds are continuously appropriated under the Judicial Branch’s constitutional authority. In addition, this line item includes reappropriated funds that are transferred from the Department of Law. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-2-120, C.R.S. [Supreme Court Library Fund]



REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $1,056,728 and 9.5 FTE, including $500,941 cash funds from the Supreme Court Library Fund, and $72,897 reappropriated funds transferred from the Department of Law. The increased General Fund reflects the impact of JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, LAW LIBRARY TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $788,204 $215,307 $500,000 $72,897 $0 6.5

TOTAL $788,204 $215,307 $500,000 $72,897 $0 6.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $788,204 $215,307 $500,000 $72,897 $0 6.5

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 248,268 248,268 0 0 0 3.0


Annualize prior legislation 941 0 941 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $1,056,728 $482,890 $500,941 $72,897 $0 9.5

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $268,524 $267,583 $941 $0 $0 3.0


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $1,056,728 $482,890 $500,941 $72,897 $0 9.5


INDIRECT COST ASSESSMENT Indirect cost assessments are charged to cash and federally-funded programs in this division for departmental and statewide overhead costs. The assessments are used in the Courts Administration division to offset General Fund appropriations. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Colorado Fiscal Rules #8-3; Section 24-75-1401, C.R.S. [Indirect Costs Excess Recovery Fund] REQUEST: The Department requests $158,410 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. The amounts recommended for this line item and the other two Indirect Cost Assessment line items in this department are calculated based on the indirect cost assessment methodology that is described at the end of this document.



(2) COURTS ADMINISTRATION The justices of the Supreme Court appoint the State Court Administrator to oversee the daily administration of the Department and provide technical and administrative support to the courts and probation offices.4 The Courts Administration section of the budget is comprised of four subdivisions:

(A) Administration and Technology - funding and staff associated with central administration of the State’s Judicial system, including information technology systems

(B) Central Appropriations - funding related to employee benefits, leased space, and services purchased from other agencies

(C) Centrally Administered Programs - funding supporting specific functions, grant programs, and distributions that are administered by the Office of the State Court Administrator

(D) Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center - spending authority to support operations of the Judicial Center

COURTS ADMINISTRATION

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $250,364,791 $137,569,724 $98,227,872 $14,567,195 $0 464.6

Other Legislation 4,717,281 3,746,801 970,480 0 0 0.9

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) (838,570) (838,570) 0 0 0 1.0

TOTAL $254,243,502 $140,477,955 $99,198,352 $14,567,195 $0 466.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $254,243,502 $140,477,955 $99,198,352 $14,567,195 $0 466.5

JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments (500,000) (43,944) (456,056) 0 0 0.0

JUD R2 Magistrates 512,520 512,520 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R3 Additional probation officers 84,216 84,216 0 0 0 0.0



83,057 83,057 0 0 0 1.0


654,348 654,348 0 0 0 0.0




203,313 203,313 0 0 0 2.0


0 0 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion

473,705 473,705 0 0 0 0.0

4 Article VI, Section 5 (3) of the Colorado Constitution; Section 13-3-101, C.R.S., states that, “The supreme court shall appoint a court administrator and such other personnel as the court may deem necessary to aid the administration of the courts.”



COURTS ADMINISTRATION

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


336,142 36,142 300,000 0 0 0.0


44,057 0 44,057 0 0 0.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments (563,974) (635,306) 71,332 0 0 (5.9)


0 0 0 0 0 0.0


JUD R15 Fleet vehicles 1,622 1,622 0 0 0 0.0


61,888 61,888 0 0 0 0.8



Annualize prior legislation (1,888,361) (1,699,886) (188,475) 0 0 0.1


Annualize prior budget actions (15,164,481) (11,148,293) (3,625,684) (390,504) 0 1.0


TOTAL $252,540,029 $147,920,052 $90,443,286 $14,176,691 $0 480.5

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($1,703,473) $7,442,097 ($8,755,066) ($390,504) $0 14.0

Percentage Change (0.7%) 5.3% (8.8%) (2.7%) 0.0% 3.0%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $249,741,962 $144,811,556 $90,753,715 $14,176,691 $0 480.5


($2,798,067) ($3,108,496) $310,429 $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – COURTS ADMINISTRATION

JUD R4 BA9 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT OFFICE REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $523,746 General Fund to add 6.0 FTE who will assist in the procurement and management of Judicial-department contracts statewide. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The Department plans to assign 4.0 of these FTE to a newly created central contract management unit (3.0 Contract Administrators I and 1.0 Contract Administrator III), while 1.0 FTE would serve as an additional purchasing agent and 1.0 FTE (a Financial Analyst III) would serve as the Systems Administrator for a new procurement contract management and payment system that a software vendor is currently developing and customizing for the Department. The Department's current contracting and procurement process is decentralized, with most duties assigned to employees in the 22 judicial districts, who must balance their normal programmatic duties with their contract and procurement duties, which include coordinating background checks, verifying insurance requirements, renewing contracts, and maintaining contract records. The request annualizes to approximately $582,000 (approx. = $529,877 + $42,850 *1.1 *(12/11)) General Fund in FY 2021-22. Staff recommends approval of this request.



JUD BA3 Executive Assistant to the State Court Administrator REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests an Executive Assistant for the newly appointed State Court Administrator at a cost of $83,057 General Fund and 1.0 FTE in FY 2019-20, annualizing to 83,713 and 1.0 FTE in FY 2020-21 and subsequent years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

ANALYSIS: The State Court Administrator (SCA) works closely with the Chief Justice, the Supreme

Court, and other court executives of the Colorado Judicial Department to set the strategic and administrative direction for the Department. The position has direct oversight of the Denver-based State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO), which provides central administrative services for the Department, including Information Technology, Financial Services, Human Resources, Court Services, Legal Counsel, Education and Probation Services. The Department describes the role of the SCA as a "dynamic, fast paced executive position that places a premium on organization, coordination, and communication." The Department further states that the SCA is "probably the only Executive Director of a State Department/Agency who does not have an executive assistant to assist with day to day duties required of the position." An executive assistant would be assigned the following duties:

Coordinate communications for the SCA including taking calls, drafting and responding to emails, and interfacing with divisions of the State Court Administrator’s Office, judicial districts and the public effectively and in a timely manner. Communicate administrative policies, directives, rules and regulations.

Coordinate calendar and schedule for the State Court Administrator. Schedule meetings and appointments and manage travel arrangements within scheduling processes.

Enter, compile, manage or analyze statistical data as needed. Write and edit reports as needed.

Provide input and participate in projects designed to provide support to the functions of the State Court Administrator’s Office.

Conduct or participate in special projects and committees.

Take meeting minutes.

Prepare internal and external business contracts and budgets for the SCA review as requested.

Track budgets and submit budget documentation, invoices, and reimbursement requests on behalf of the State Court Administrator.

Maintain organized filing systems of paper and electronic documents.

Attend meetings and training as required.

Perform other duties as assigned. If approved, the State Court Administrator will no longer have to delegate the above duties to others throughout the office or to take time to complete them himself. This will free up time for the State Court Administrator to focus on the priorities of the Department office rather than on day-to-day administrative needs. Staff recommends approval of the request.



JUD BA8 Kronos and DocuSign REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $654,348 General Fund to (1) acquire KRONOS Workforce Dimensions, a web-based electronic time keeping system that will integrate with the state’s new HRWorks system and will replace the Department’s aging and failing timekeeping system, and (2) DocuSign, a web-based electronic document signature system. First year costs of KRONOS equal $250,081 for implementation, $78,125 for an implementation manager, and $311,142 annually for the ongoing cost of using KRONOS after implementation. DocuSign costs $15,000 annually with no implementation costs. Staff recommends approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The Department needs to replace its current time keeping system, JETRS, a Department-built solution designed 15 years ago. JETRS is at the end of its life cycle and is producing an increasing number of errors that the Department’s IT Division no longer has the knowledge to fix. In addition, the Department needs to expand the system’s timekeeping, scheduling and reporting capabilities, which they are unable to do with JETRS. The Department wants a system that will work with the Department of Personnel and Administration’s (DPA’s) HRWorks, which will replace the aging CPPS payroll system at DPA. DPA suggests two options — SAP, which Department of Transportation is using, and KRONOS Dimensions, which is being used by the Department of Human Services. KRONOS is a web-based Software as a Service (SaaS) system that allows for time keeping, scheduling, grant budget assignments of work time, and integration into both the current state payroll system (CPPS) and the new HRWorks HRIS/Payroll system. The Department will use all those functionalities upon implementation of the system. KRONOS Incorporated will be responsible for the updates of the software system. The Department’s Payroll Unit will be responsible for the day to day operational and configuration changes to the system in conjunction with KRONOS. The Department will join in the Office of Information Technology (OIT) contract with KRONOS Incorporated, which assures a good price. KRONOS implementation costs for FY 2020-21 are projected to be $250,081. This includes program adaptation and training throughout the Department including each Judicial District. The annual SaaS (software as a Service) fee is $311,412. This request includes $15,000 for the annual subscription costs for DocuSign, the electronic signature software utilized by the contract management module of the Ivalua P2P system. Ivalua P2P is the subject of request JUD R12 BA9 Probation -- procurement, officers, and treatment.

JUD R5 LANGUAGE TRANSLATORS REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests 1.0 FTE and $287,798 General Fund for a court translator FTE for the Translation Department at the Department's main Denver office, which



currently has 2.0 FTE translators. Of the total cost, $71,964 is for the new employee and $210,000 is for additional work by contract translators. Translators translate from English into other languages such things as Judicial Department forms, advisements, waivers, case management orders, handbooks, brochures, flyers, etc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Translation is the process through which a written document in a source language, primarily English, is turned into a written document with the same meaning in the target language. Interpreters translate the spoken word. The Judicial Branch’s Translation Department manages the production of official translations from English into Spanish. Common translations from English into Spanish include Judicial Department Forms, advisements, waivers, case management orders, handbooks, brochures, flyers, etc. The additional FTE translator will also translate Spanish. The Department states that translation is, ideally, a three-person process: the first translates the text; the second edits; and the third proofreads and formats. The three-person process is used to ensure accuracy. With Judicial’s Translation Department being a two-person operation, when either staff member is out of the office or unavailable at a training or meeting, the work slows markedly. Projects get completed, but at a slow pace and sometimes with substantial delay. An additional 1.0 FTE, to bring the FTE total to 3.0, will keep projects moving. Translation involving languages other than Spanish is performed by contractors. As the following table shows, recently these costs have risen substantially, equaling $210,166 in FY 2018-19, which is also the approximate amount involved in this request.

YEAR CONTRACT TRANSLATION EXPENDITURES

FY 2015-16 $156,656

FY 2016-17 $176,761

FY 2017-18 $217,370

FY 2018-19 $210,166

Average $190,238

The Department does not charge persons who have limited English proficiency for translation and interpretation services.

JUD R8 BA2 BRIDGES PROGRAM REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $381,576 and 8.0 FTE for the Bridges program established by S.B. 18-251 (Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program). More specifically it requests:

$86,610 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for a Court Programs Analyst II position to support the coordination of the Bridges Program throughout the state.

$94,966 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for another Court Programs Analyst II position to provide supervision for Court Liaisons.

$200,000 for a program evaluation study.



6.0 FTE and no dollars for Court Liaisons positions in districts unable to secure a satisfactory contract through a community mental health provider for the services of a liaison.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The Bridges Program began operating in the fall of 2018. It places 29 Court Liaisons across all 22 judicial districts to facilitate collaboration between the criminal justice and mental health systems. The intention of the original legislation was to address the critical delay defendants experience in accessing competency services, which leads to significant decompensation of mental health in jail settings. In addition, Court Liaisons address more comprehensive needs of a defendant beyond competency (such as mental health, housing, and transportation). Court Liaisons work directly with defendants to identify needs and connect them to services, keep judges and attorneys informed about available services in the community, and facilitate communication and coordination of care with the Office of Behavioral Health (OBH) competency programs. $86,610 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for a Court Programs Analyst II position to support the coordination of the Bridges Program throughout the state. It has become increasingly difficult for the single FTE who runs this program to perform all her duties. As a result the Department requests $86,610 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for a Court Programs Analyst II who will support the work of the Program’s statewide coordinator by: 1) developing curriculum for ongoing Court Liaison training; 2) providing training to new Court Liaisons and ongoing case consultation to all Court Liaisons; 3) documenting and maintaining policies, procedures, and best practice guidelines; 4) providing ongoing trainings to judges and attorneys on best practices for utilization of the Bridges Program; 5) supporting statewide data collection efforts; and 6) coordinating information sharing and development of best practices with the Office of Behavioral Health in order to implement 2019 statutory and consent decree expectations. $94,966 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for a Court Programs Analyst II position to provide supervision for Court Liaisons. This individual will provide direct supervision for Judicial employees who are court liaisons and for contract liaisons. It is to be expected that relatively inexperienced state-employee liaisons would need such support -- someone to get advice from, for example, when a difficult client will not cooperate. The liaisons must follow mental health best practices while simultaneously conforming with judicial practices, including maintaining judicial neutrality and practicing in accordance with the legal rights of participants. It was originally expected that contract liaisons would not require support because they would get it from their employers. Unfortunately, in some districts, contract liaison are not receiving the support they need. 6.0 FTE and no dollars for court liaisons who are state employees. The fiscal note for S.B. 18-251 envisioned that the Court Liaisons would be contractors who worked for community mental health providers, rather than state employees. In some judicial districts (in rural and frontier areas) it has proved impossible to find and retain contractors with these skills, so the Department is increasingly turning this task over to state FTE whom it employs. This led to the supplemental request for 2 liaison-employees in January and it accounts for the 6.0 liason-employees in this request. The Bridges Program currently faces this situation for at least four liaison positions serving four districts in Western Colorado. There are other districts with contracts that may not renew, thus



the request for 6.0 rather than 4.0 FTE. Since the additional FTE are consistent with the provisions that govern the program, which are found in Section 16-11.9-201 through 205, C.R.S., and no additional appropriation is required, the Department could add them unilaterally by notifying the JBC that it is doing so. In accord with Section 24-75-112, C.R.S., this is what it did in January. Program evaluation. Bridges is also requesting $200,000 for a quantitative and qualitative program evaluation. The objective is to fulfil its reporting obligations under Section 16-11.9-205 C.R.S., but, equally important, it wants an objective evaluation of program outcomes, insight on data that it should collect, and an evaluation of program design.

JUD BA7 2.0 FTE FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND BUDGET STAFF REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $203,313 General Fund and 2.0 FTE for the Human Resources (HR) and Budget Office (BO?) to meet the growing workload need in these areas. These positions would be appropriated to the General Courts Services appropriation in the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Workload growth for Human Resources and Budget at the SCAO has come from three sources:

Growth in the number of independent Judicial agencies;

Growth in the number of court administered programs.

Growth in Judicial Department FTE; Since FY05 (the last time the Budget Office received a new FTE, which brought the Budget Office staff to 3.0 FTE Analysts and 1.0 FTE Budget Manager), the Judicial Department’s overall budget has increased 167 percent from $232M to $630M and Departmental FTE have increased from 2,905 FTE to 3,927 FTE. This growth has also placed strain on the HR staff. While each judicial district and appellate court handles their own general HR functions, SCAO’s human resource tasks are handled entirely by the HR Division at the SCAO. Using standards for the number of HR FTE per departmental employee developed by the Society of Human Resources Management, an additional HR FTE can also easily be justified. Growth in the number of independent Judicial agencies: In the past half dozen years, the General Assembly has added four new independent agencies to the Judicial Branch: the ORPC, the OCPO, the IEC, and the OPG. The SCAO has entered into a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with these independent agencies under the Judicial Branch umbrella for administrative services that the agencies would not otherwise be able to perform. For the HR Division, the services provided to the independent agencies include functions requiring significant manpower and system usage, such as payroll, onboarding, recruitment, employee relations, timekeeping, benefit management, leave of absence, training, and reorganization. The Budget Office is required to prepare budget allocations, provide monthly or quarterly reports, work with the agencies to create and submit their respective budget requests (including assistance with decision items, Performance Budgeting input, schedule



creation and common policy requests), assist with supplemental requests, update figure setting, and meet with the agencies as needed. Growth in the number of court administered programs. The Department provided the following list of new programs and tasks that have been added since 2005:

Centrally Administered Programs o Problem Solving Courts o Language Access o Courthouse Security o Underfunded Facilities o Restorative Justice Program o Adult Diversion Program o Behavioral Health Program o Mental Health Diversion Program o Eviction Legal Defense Program o Judicial Education

Ralph Carr Justice Center o Personnel Services and operating o Debt Service o Judicial Center Maintenance Fund

Trial Court Programs o Action and Statewide Discovery Systems

Probation and Related Programs o Correctional Treatment Cash Fund

The Department notes that each new program requires monthly or quarterly tracking and reporting quite similar to the level of work required of independent agencies (budget allocations, monitoring and tracking, budget preparation including decision item and supplemental creation, regular meetings with the program managers and advisement on budgetary matters).

JUD (UNNUMBERED REQUEST) SALARY SURVEY REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $1,652,028 total funds ($1,502,423 General Fund and $149,605 cash funds) to increase the pay of 1,100 employees in 21 of its job classes by an average of 3.8%. This increase would move salary ranges up and maintain the relative position of employees within those ranges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The Department is requesting the statewide common-policy 3 percent salary survey increase for judicial officers and for top employees with salaries linked to judges. It is requesting a 3 percent



merit increase for its other employees. The merit pool is equal in dollar amount to a 3 percent across-the-board increase for these non-judge employees. This request asks for an additional increase on top of the 3 percent merit increase that non-judge employees will receive. The request would implement the recommendations in the Department’s annual salary survey, which is produced by Segal Waters, a third-party compensation consulting company that also produced the Department’s FY 2019-20 Annual Compensation Report. The Segal Waters report found that among the Department’s job classes, 21 have salary ranges that are more than three percent below comparable salaries elsewhere. The consultant recommended increases of 2 percent to 10 percent for these job classes. Based on this recommendation, the Judicial Department proposes to increase the salaries of all employees in each of these affected classes by the recommended percentage for the class and also move the salary range for the class upward by the recommended percentage. This is a list of the affected job classes.



Judicial Branch employees will receive the statewide 3 percent increase that other state Departments are receiving. Staff cannot justify an additional increase for Judicial employees, even if it is based on what appears to be a well-conducted survey of comparable salaries outside the Judicial Branch.

JUD R6 ADULT DIVERSION PROGRAM EXPANSION REQUEST: The State Diversion Advisory Committee, acting through the Judicial Department, requests $473,705 General Fund to increase funding for existing District Attorney diversion programs across the state and to provide funding to expand a diversion program to an additional district. The program currently receives a $400,000 General Fund appropriation. Since the passage of H.B. 13-1156, which created and funded the adult diversion grant program, the funding for diversion grants has remained constant at $400,000 while the number of applications for funding has grown. This request would increase funding for existing programs and allow the expansion of the program to another district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. Analysis: This line item provides funding for district attorneys' adult pretrial diversion programs. A five-member Diversion Funding Committee is responsible for:

developing funding guidelines and an application process for district attorneys to request state funds to support an adult pretrial diversion program;

reviewing funding requests; and

allocating state funding for adult pretrial diversion programs that meet the established statutory guidelines.

District attorneys that receive funding are required to collect data and provide a status report to the Judicial Department concerning its adult pretrial diversion program. The FY 2017-18 Adult Diversion Annual Legislative Report dated January 2019 can be found here. The act that created this program (H.B. 13-1156) provided funding for 0.5 FTE to develop guidelines and procedures for distribution of funding and to perform regular oversight activities associated with monitoring and expenditure of funds. This General Fund position continues to be supported through the “General Courts Administration” line item.

JUD R13 INCREASE CF APPROP FOR FAMILY-FRIENDLY COURT PROGRAM GRANTS REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests a $44,057 increase in cash fund appropriations for Family-friendly Court program grants from the Family-friendly Court Program Cash Fund. This increase will help the Department meet the need for court-related child care and for supervised visitation and exchange programs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Administration/Planning_and_Analysis/Court%20Programs/adult%20diversion/annual%20reports/Adult%20Diversion%20Annual%20Legislative%20Report%202019.pdf


Background: The Family Friendly Court Program is funded with a $1.00 surcharge on traffic violations. It makes grants to judicial districts to help them provide two types of services for people with children: (1) Provide quality child care in or near a courthouse or through vouchers for private childcare services for families attending court proceedings. Many persons who attend court proceedings (e.g. plaintiffs, respondents, defendants, parents of defendants, and jurors) are responsible for the care of young children. Childcare issues can make it difficult for these people to participate in the proceedings (2) Provides a location when a parent can spend supervised parenting time with a child and where a child can be transferred from one parent to another. The programs also helps families connect with relevant community services, such as youth mentoring, crime and dropout prevention, employment counseling and training, financial management, legal counseling, and substance abuse programs. The Judicial Department allocates money from the Family-friendly Court Program Cash Fund to judicial districts that apply for funding for the creation, operation, and enhancement of family-friendly court facilities.

JUD R10 BA6B IT DATA CENTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (WITHDRAWN) This request was withdrawn but staff retained it because of the interesting reason for the withdrawal. In its November 1st budget request, the Judicial Department requested $3,304,029 General Fund for the replacement of IT equipment in its data center and its disaster recovery center. Since the November 1st submission, the Department has analyzed (1) equipment leasing and (2) cloud-based alternatives. The analysis revealed that leasing is only slightly more expensive over a five-year period as the following table shows:

The Department can fund the annual lease costs out of its base appropriation and thus requests withdrawal of R10.

BA6A CARR CENTER DEBT SERVICE REDUCTION REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests that

The General Fund appropriation that pays part of the debt service expense for the Carr Center be reduced by $500,000 for FY 2020-21 and subsequent years and cash fund payments from the Justice Center Cash fund for debt service be increased by $500,000.

Even with this increase in expenditures from the Justice Center Cash Fund, the debt service appropriation from that fund exceeds the amount that the Department must pay each year. The cash fund appropriation has simply been set too high. The Department asks that this unnecessarily large cash fund appropriation be reduced by $5,000,000.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

Combined Costs FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 Total Cost

Purchase $8,454,977 $2,160,355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,615,332

Lease $1,730,883 $2,160,355 $2,160,355 $2,160,355 $2,160,355 $429,472 $10,801,775



ANALYSIS: In 2015, when the Judicial Department was having difficulty making Carr Center debt service payments from its own cash fund sources, the JBC approved a plan under which Carr Center debt service expense was jointly paid by the General Fund and the Justice Center Cash Fund, with the remainder paid by History Colorado. The General Fund initially paid $5 million of the annual debt service cost, a payment that was scheduled to decline over time as the Justice Center Cash Fund paid more. An integral part of the plan is the annual 1.8 percent increases in lease payments made by Carr Center tenants, such as the Department of Law and the Office of the State Public Defender. These increases provide the Justice Center Cash Fund with added revenue. Over the last four years, Long Bill appropriations have “annualized” this 2015 JBC budget action and the General Fund payments have declined as cash fund debt service payments from the Justice Center Cash Fund have risen. Lease revenue and other revenue of the Justice Center Cash Fund has risen faster than expected over the last two years, which allows the Department to increase its payments and reduce its dependence on the General Fund as it proposes with this request.

JUD R15 FLEET VEHICLES REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests a net decrease of $2,622 General Fund for vehicle expenses. It requests permission to acquire two leased vehicles through the State Fleet Management program, which will increase the Department's fleet from approximately 39 to 41 vehicles. The new vehicles will be used by employees who currently use personal vehicles for Department business and are compensated for that use at the rate of 51¢ per mile. The increased lease costs will be more than offset by reduced payments to employees; the additional vehicles will allow the Department to reduce its vehicle-related expenditures by an estimated $2,622 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

JUD R9 BA1 COURTHOUSE CAPITAL REQUEST: The Department requests a $3,550,009 for FY 2012-21 for the State's share of the costs of new, expanded, and remodeled courthouse facilities (including probation facilities). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request. ANALYSIS: This request will pay for infrastructure and courthouse furnishings in expanded, remodeled, or new facilities, and for replacement or refurbishment of existing furniture that is no longer useable or will soon become unusable if not repaired. A courthouse capital appropriation appears in the Long Bill every year but the Department does not treat it as a base appropriation off which adjustments are to be made. For FY 2019-20, the General Fund portion of this appropriation equaled $2,273,235, so this request is in fact an increase of $1,276,774 compared with last year's request. Note that county decisions to open and remodel courts drive this appropriation.



COURTHOUSE FURNISHING AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE

LOCATION PROJECT ARCHITECT AUDIO

VISUAL FURNISHING TECHNOLOGY NETWORK TOTAL

Boulder Boulder County Jail Courtroom reconfiguration, including replacement of furnishings and A/V upgrades. $0 $16,000 $85,800 $0 $15,605 $117,405

Centennial New courtroom on 3rd floor of Courthouse 2 at the Arapahoe County Justice Center and other 3rd floor space remodeled 0 45,000 478,050 15,095 9,570 547,715

Denver Mobile shelving upgrade. 0 0 26,500 0 0 26,500

Denver Buildout of 2 new courtrooms for new District Court Judges, costs not covered in SB19-043 180,762 97,000 33,410 0 311,172

Huerfano New courthouse 1,500 271,200 378,900 25,000 298,667 975,267

Jeffco Relocation of Probation to the Administrative side of Jeffco Admin Building 42,000 658,750 150,000 0 850,750

Pitkin Courthouse remodel scheduled to finish in FY21 130,200 233,740 0 0 363,940

Weld Expand conference room 200 4,000 60,700 650 15,670 81,220

Weld Two additional courtrooms in Centennial Building. 0 1,000 227,100 24,800 23,140 276,040

Total: $1,700 $690,162 $2,246,540 $248,955 $362,652 $3,550,009

BACKGROUND INFORMATION – STATE ROLE AT COURTHOUSE FACILITIES Section 13-3-108, C.R.S, requires each county to provide and maintain adequate courtrooms and other court facilities. Section 13-3-104, C.R.S., requires that the State pay for the "operations, salaries, and other expenses of all courts of record within the state, except for county courts in the city and county of Denver and municipal courts." Pursuant to the latter provision, the General Assembly annually appropriates funds for courthouse facilities and infrastructure, including the following types of expenditures:

Furnishings for new, expanded, and remodeled courthouse facilities (including probation facilities);

Costs associated with decision items that affect courthouses and probation offices;

Phone and communication systems; and

Audiovisual systems. In addition, the State Court Administrator's Office (SCAO) provides technical and informational support for Judicial Department managers and county officials with regard to the planning, design, and construction of new or remodeled court and probation facilities. SCAO staff is available to provide support throughout the design process including the selection of design professionals and contractors, space planning, conceptual design, schematic design, design development, and construction administration. SCAO staff also offers technical assistance and consultation regarding courthouse security issues, courtroom technology, furnishings, fixtures, and associated equipment. Finally, the General Assembly provides state funding to assist some counties with facility-related expenditures through the Courthouse Security Grant Program and the Underfunded Courthouse Facilities Grant Program, which appear just above this line item in the Judicial Department budget.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – COURTS ADMINISTRATION

(A) ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNOLOGY



This subsection funds the activities of the Office of the State Court Administrator, including the following central administrative functions: accounting and budget; human resources; facilities management; procurement; public information; legal services; and information technology. Note that the Judicial Department’s IT functions are independent of OIT.5 Line items in this section are primarily supported by General Fund and the Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund.

ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNOLOGY

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $46,479,607 $21,213,436 $22,682,718 $2,583,453 $0 254.3

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 486,952 486,952 0 0 0 0.0

Other Legislation 331,353 110,873 220,480 0 0 0.9

TOTAL $47,297,912 $21,811,261 $22,903,198 $2,583,453 $0 255.2





654,348 654,348 0 0 0 0.0



336,142 36,142 300,000 0 0 0.0


193,877 193,877 0 0 0 2.0


78,339 78,339 0 0 0 1.0


61,888 61,888 0 0 0 0.8


0 0 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 1.5


Annualize prior legislation (98,668) 121,812 (220,480) 0 0 0.1



TOTAL $49,307,838 $24,222,243 $22,502,142 $2,583,453 $0 266.6

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $2,009,926 $2,410,982 ($401,056) $0 $0 11.4

Percentage Change 4.2% 11.1% (1.8%) 0.0% 0.0% (2)


Request Above/(Below)

Recommendation $480,576 $0 $480,576 $0 $0 0.0

GENERAL COURTS ADMINISTRATION

5 Senate Bill 08-155 consolidated IT operations of most of the state's executive branch agencies in the Governor's Office of Information Technology (OIT) but it excluded the legislative and judicial branches and the departments of law, state, and treasury. See Section 24-37.5-102 (4), C.R.S.



This line item provides funding for personal services and operating expenses for the Office of the State Court Administrator's central administrative functions (e.g., human resources, accounting and budget, courts and probation administration and technical assistance, etc.). This line item also supports staff that develops and maintains information technology systems used by court and probation staff in all 22 judicial districts, as well as systems used by other agencies and individuals to file information with the courts and access court information. Staff also provides training and technical assistance to system users. In addition, this line item provides funding for the costs of the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Jury Instruction Revision Committee, the printing of civil and criminal jury instructions, and the Branch's membership in the National Center for State Courts. Sources of cash funds that support this line item include: the Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund; the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund; the Restorative Justice Surcharge Fund; and various sources of cash funds. Reappropriated funds that support this line item are from indirect cost recoveries. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-101 et seq., C.R.S. [Judicial Department] REQUEST: As the following table shows, the Department requests a total of $28,101,180 and 266.6 FTE, including $22,569,660 General Fund for this line item. The appropriation is affected by 7 budget requests and budget amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNOLOGY, GENERAL COURTS ADMINISTRATION TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $26,341,862 $20,810,342 $2,965,562 $2,565,958 $0 254.3

Other Legislation $110,873 $110,873 $0 $0 $0 0.9

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $26,452,735 $20,921,215 $2,965,562 $2,565,958 $0 255.2






193,877 193,877 0 0 0 2.0



78,339 78,339 0 0 0 1.0


61,888 61,888 0 0 0 0.8

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 1.5



TOTAL $28,101,180 $22,569,660 $2,965,562 $2,565,958 $0 266.6

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $1,648,445 $1,648,445 $0 $0 $0 11.4




COURTS ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNOLOGY, GENERAL COURTS ADMINISTRATION TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE This line item provides funding for the following information technology-related expenses:

The majority of the Department's data line charges;

Hardware replacement (personal computers, servers, routers, switches, etc.); and

Software and hardware maintenance, including: licenses, updates and maintenance; hardware/software maintenance agreements related to the Department's voice/data network; anti-virus software; and the ongoing costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of all of the Department's hardware (personal computers, terminals, printers, and remote controllers).

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-101 et seq., C.R.S. [Judicial Department]; Section 13-32-114, C.R.S. [Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund] REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION:

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

INFRASTRUCTURE TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $14,906,021 $403,094 $14,502,927 $0 $0 0.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $486,952 $486,952 $0 $0 $0 0.0

Other Legislation $220,480 $0 $220,480 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $15,613,453 $890,046 $14,723,407 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $15,613,453 $890,046 $14,723,407 $0 $0 0.0


654,348 654,348 0 0 0 0.0


336,142 36,142 300,000 0 0 0.0



0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation (219,023) 1,457 (220,480) 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $16,455,510 $1,652,583 $14,802,927 $0 $0 0.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $842,057 $762,537 $79,520 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $16,455,510 $1,652,583 $14,802,927 $0 $0 0.0




INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST RECOVERIES This line item isolates program expenditures related to e-filing and its related costs as well as any other data requests that are eligible for cash reimbursement. The idea is to isolate these expenditures in order to allow better tracking of expenses and revenues associated with e-filing. REQUEST: The Department requests an unchanged appropriation of $3,860,800, which staff recommends. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

INDIRECT COST ASSESSMENT Statewide indirect cost assessments are charged to cash and federal programs for statewide overhead costs (such as those generated by the Department of Personnel and Administration or DPA), and then the assessments are used in administrative divisions to offset General Fund appropriations. This department’s share of statewide costs is primarily related to the DPA’s archive services, DPA’s Office of the State Controller, and the State Treasurer’s Office. Departmental indirect cost assessments are charged to cash and federally-funded programs for departmental overhead costs, and then the assessments are used in the Courts Administration section to offset General Fund appropriations. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Colorado Fiscal Rules #8-3; Section 24-75-1401, C.R.S. [Indirect Costs Excess Recovery Fund] REQUEST: The Department requests $890,348, including $872,853 cash funds and $17,495 reappropriated funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which is consistent with Committee policy.

(B) CENTRAL APPROPRIATIONS This Long Bill group includes various centrally appropriated line items. Some of the appropriations are for the entire Judicial Branch; some are for “main judicial” – i.e. for the courts, courts administration, and probation. Unless otherwise noted, the sources of cash funds include: the Offender Services Fund, the Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund, the Fines Collection Cash Fund, the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund, the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund, the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund, and the State Commission on Judicial Performance Cash Fund.

CENTRAL APPROPRIATIONS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $96,711,732 $90,473,146 $6,238,586 $0 $0 0.0



CENTRAL APPROPRIATIONS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

Other Legislation 591,104 591,104 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $97,302,836 $91,064,250 $6,238,586 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $97,302,836 $91,064,250 $6,238,586 $0 $0 0.0



JUD R3 Additional probation officers 84,216 84,216 0 0 0 0.0



JUD R15 Fleet vehicles 13,470 13,470 0 0 0 0.0



9,436 9,436 0 0 0 0.0



4,718 4,718 0 0 0 0.0


0 0 0 0 0 0.0


Annualize prior budget actions (10,043,505) (9,465,934) (577,571) 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $103,098,386 $96,857,035 $6,241,351 $0 $0 0.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $5,795,550 $5,792,785 $2,765 $0 $0 0.0

Percentage Change 6.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (2)



Recommendation ($3,377,731) ($3,207,584) ($170,147) $0 $0 0.0

HEALTH, LIFE AND DENTAL This is the first of several line items that provide funding for the employer's share of the cost of group benefit plans providing health, life, and dental insurance for state employees. Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate appropriation to fund the salaries and the benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for Main Judicial (the courts and probation). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $42,097,764, including $39,003,414 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, consistent with Committee policy.

SHORT-TERM DISABILITY



This is the first of several line items that provide funding for the employer's share of state employees' short-term disability insurance premiums. Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate appropriation to fund the salaries and the benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts Administration, Trial Courts, and Probation staff. Note that the Department does not provide short-term disability for justices and judges, so the premium calculation excludes base salaries for judges and justices. It is staff's understanding that this is due to the constitutional prohibition on decreasing compensation for a judge or justice during their term of office.6 If a judge or justice becomes disabled, he or she is either paid a full salary while on short-term leave or is paid under long-term disability provisions. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (13), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $363,658, including $330,369 General Fund. This calculation is based on applying a rate of 0.17 percent to base salaries plus requested salary survey increases. (The percentage is different for judicial officers.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, consistent with Committee policy.

S.B. 04-257 AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (AED) Pursuant to S.B. 04-257, this is the first of several line items that provide additional funding to increase the state contribution for Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA). Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate appropriation to fund the salaries and the benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts Administration, Trial Courts, and Probation staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $13,188,862, including $12,222,255 General Fund, based on applying a 5.0 percent rate for most staff. (Judicial officers have a different rate). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $13,318,164 total funds and $12,343,480 General Fund.

S.B. 06-235 SUPPLEMENTAL AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (SAED) Pursuant to S.B. 06-235, this is the first of several line items that provide additional funding to increase the state contribution for PERA. Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate appropriation to fund the salaries and the

6 See Section 18 of Article VI of the State Constitution.



benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts Administration, Trial Courts, and Probation staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $13,318,164, including $12,343,480General Fund, based on applying a 5.0 percent rate for most staff. (Judicial officers have a different rate). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $13,318,164 total funds and $12,343,480 General Fund.

PERA DIRECT DISTRIBUTION This line item is included as a common policy allocation payment for the state portion of the PERA Direct Distribution created in Section 24-51-414, C.R.S., which was enacted in S.B. 18-200. This appropriation pays the PERA Direct Distribution for all the agencies in the Judicial Branch. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 24-51-414 (2) C.R.S. REQUEST: The Judicial Branch agencies collectively request an appropriation of $8,470,053 total funds, including $7,850,176 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $6,791,748 total funds, including $6,293,983 General Fund, which accords with Committee common policy for the PERA Direct Distribution.

SALARY SURVEY The Department uses this line item to pay for annual salary increases. Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate appropriation to fund the salaries and the benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for “main judicial”, i.e. for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts Administration, Trial Courts, and Probation staff. REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests an appropriation of $3,153,967 total funds, including $149,605 General Fund. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104, C.R.S. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $3,153,967 total funds, $2,252,909 General Fund, consistent with Committee policy.

MERIT PAY The Department uses this line item to pay for performance-related pay increases. Each of the independent agencies submits a separate budget request, and has the authority to employ and determine the compensation of their staff. Thus, each independent agency receives a separate



appropriation to fund the salaries and the benefits for its employees. This line item provides funds for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts Administration, Trial Courts, and Probation staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104 (1) (c), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $4,639,792 Total Funds including $4,276,811 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $6,959,657 total funds including $6,415,190 General Fund, consistent with Committee policy.

PARENTAL LEAVE The Department of Personnel states that this appropriation is part of a policy that will provide eight weeks of paid leave for qualifying parental events, such as a birth, adoption, or foster placement. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: None. REQUEST: The Department requests no appropriation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is pending the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION This line item is used to pay the entire Branch's estimated share for inclusion in the state's workers' compensation program for state employees (including funding associated with the independent agencies). This program is administered by the Department of Personnel and Administration. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-30-1510.7, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Judicial Branch agencies collectively request $1,404,569 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, which corresponds with the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

LEGAL SERVICES This line item currently provides funding for four agencies in the Judicial Branch to purchase legal services from the Department of Law. The appropriation is a combination of the amounts paid by Main Judicial (the courts and probation), the Office of the State Public Defender, the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of the Child’s Representative, the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel, the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman, and the Independent Ethics Commission. The appropriation does not include the Office of Public Guardianship. Since FY 2017-18, legal services appropriations have been based on a three-year average of legal services hours consumed by each agency as well as an average of other litigation costs incurred by the agency. Similar to other common policies, the Department of Law now bills client agencies in 12



equal monthly installments based on the appropriation rather than actual hours of services provided in a given month. Though judicial branch agencies have attorneys on staff, they still need legal representation. For example, main Judicial indicates that it requires services from the Department of Law for litigation-related matters because it attorneys cannot appear in front of judicial officers that they advise as clients. Some examples of the types of cases in which the Department of Law provides legal counsel for judicial branch agencies are listed below:

Representing an agency in procurement disputes;

Performing contract review and other transactional matters for an agency;

Representing agency employees when confidential records are subpoenaed;

Representing judicial employees who are sued and injunctive relief is sought against them; and

Representing the agency in certain matters before the PERA board;

JUDICIAL BRANCH LEGAL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT

ACTUAL

LEGAL

HOURS

FY 14

ACTUAL

LEGAL

HOURS

FY 15

ACTUAL

LEGAL

HOURS

FY 16

ACTUAL

LEGAL

HOURS

FY 17

ACTUAL

LEGAL

HOURS

FY 18

FY 16, 17, 18

AVERAGE

HOURS

FY 19

APPROP FY 20

REQUEST CHANGE

Judicial Department 1,420 1,563 2,714 2,803 2,457 2,658 $253,323 $342,265 $88,942

Public Defender 3 4 136 26 22 61 5,725 8,806 3,081

Alternate Defense Council 0 0 63 65 10 46 4,517 6,008 1,491

Child Representative 20 86 33 91 13 46 7,268 6,251 (1,017)

Respondent Parents Counsel 0 0 5 49 42 32 1,864 5,721 3,857

Child Protection Ombudsmen 0 0 274 121 80 158 13,631 16,739 3,108

Independent Ethics Commission 1,583 1,404 1,392 1,306 1,681 1,460 141,700 178,559 36,859

Total 3,025 3,057 4,618 4,461 4,304 4,461 $428,028 $564,349 $136,321

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to 24-31-101 (1) (a), C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-75-112 (1), C.R.S. REQUEST: Judicial Branch agencies collectively request a legal services appropriation of $564,349 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation is pending the Committee’s decisions on all of the common policies that will together help determine the legal services rate.

PAYMENT TO RISK MANAGEMENT AND PROPERTY FUNDS This line item provides funding for the entire Branch's share of the statewide costs for two programs operated by the Department of Personnel and Administration: (1) the liability program, and (2) the property program. The state's liability program is used to pay liability claims and expenses brought against the State. The property program provides insurance coverage for state buildings and their contents. This line item includes funding for the independent agencies. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-30-1510 and 24-30-1510.5, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Judicial Branch agencies collectively request $845,759 General Fund.



RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $845,759 General Fund, which corresponds to the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

VEHICLE LEASE PAYMENTS The Department of Personnel and Administration administers the state's fleet management program, which purchases or leases vehicles, manages maintenance and repairs, manages the fleet, auctions older vehicles, and manages the state motor pool. Vehicle costs include variable and fixed expenses. Variable costs are billed at a rate per mile based on department and vehicle type and are typically paid from Operating Expenses line items. Variable costs include insurance, fuel, maintenance, and repairs. Fixed costs include the vehicle lease payments and the Department's vehicle management fee and are included in each department's Vehicle Lease Payments line item. This line item provides funding for annual payments to the Department of Personnel and Administration for the cost of administration, loan repayment, and lease-purchase payments for new and replacement motor vehicles [see Section 24-30-1117, C.R.S.]. The current appropriation covers costs associated with a total of 25 vehicles which are shared by probation and trial court staff within each judicial district. The Department indicates that these vehicles travel a little over 475,000 miles per year, which represents a fraction of the total miles driven by court and probation employees. Most of the miles driven for judicial business are in personal vehicles. State vehicles are primarily used by rural judges traveling to courthouses within their judicial district, computer technicians, and some probation officers performing home visits. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-30-1104 (2), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $135,149 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $135,149 General Fund.

RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER LEASED SPACE This line item provides funding to cover the leased space expenses for use of Carr Center space for the following Judicial Branch agencies:

Office of the State Court Administrator;

Office of the State Public Defender (central administrative and appellate offices only);

Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel;

Office of the Child's Representative (central administrative office only);

Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel;

Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman; and

Independent Ethics Commission. These leased space payments are paid by the General Fund and are revenue to the Justice Center Cash Fund. Pursuant to a JBC decision regarding payments for Carr Center debt service, the payments rise 1.8 percent annually. The increases are annualizations of a prior budget action by the Committee.



STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S. [State Justice Center] REQUEST: The Department requests $2,721,674 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. The amounts are based on the actual leased space occupied by each agency and the applicable leased space rates for FY 2020-21. These rates include amounts paid to the Colorado State Patrol for security services.

PAYMENTS TO OIT This line item was first included in the FY 2014-15 Long Bill, consolidating funding that was previously included in four separate line items: Purchase of Services from Computer Center; Colorado State Network; Communication Services Payments; and Information Technology Security. This line item covers the entire Judicial Branch's share of funding for the various services provided by the Governor's Office of Information Technology. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 24-37.5-104, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Judicial Branch agencies collectively request a total of $8,112,286 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is pending the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

CORE OPERATIONS This line item provides the entire Branch's share of funding the new CORE system that is used to record all state revenues and expenditures. This line item includes funding associated with the independent agencies. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-30-209, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $1,877,756 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $1,877,756 General Fund, which corresponds to the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

CAPITAL OUTLAY This line item provides funding for the one-time costs associated with new employees and programs (office furniture, a computer and software, etc.). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-106, C.R.S. [Judicial Department operating budget]; Section 24-82-801, C.R.S. [Lease-purchase agreements]



REQUEST: The Department requests an appropriation of $625,602 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

(C) CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS This Long Bill group includes various programs and distributions that are administered by the Office of the State Court Administrator for the benefit of the courts, probation, and administrative functions.

CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $73,291,133 $21,390,227 $47,758,651 $4,142,255 $0 208.3


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) (1,325,522) (1,325,522) 0 0 0 1.0

TOTAL $75,760,435 $23,109,529 $48,508,651 $4,142,255 $0 209.3




JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion

473,705 473,705 0 0 0 0.0




44,057 0 44,057 0 0 0.0


Annualize prior budget actions (2,182,371) (2,378,874) 196,503 0 0 1.0

Annualize prior legislation (1,790,357) (1,821,698) 31,341 0 0 0.0


JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments (480,000) (23,944) (456,056) 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $75,495,439 $22,957,356 $48,395,828 $4,142,255 $0 211.9

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($264,996) ($152,173) ($112,823) $0 $0 2.6

Percentage Change (0.3%) (0.7%) (0.2%) 0.0% 0.0% (2)



Recommendation $99,088 $99,088 $0 $0 $0 (0.0)

VICTIM ASSISTANCE and

VICTIM COMPENSATION These two line items represent funds that are collected by the courts from offenders and then transferred to local governments for compensation and assistance of victims. These amounts are included for informational purposes only, as they are continuously appropriated under the Judicial Branch’s constitutional authority. The sources of cash funds are the Victims and Witnesses Assistance and Law Enforcement Funds (for Victim Assistance) and Crime Victim Compensation Funds (for Victim Compensation).



STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of Title 24, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of funding, including $16,375,000 cash funds for Victim Assistance and $13,400,000 cash funds for Victim Compensation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the requests for both line items.

COLLECTIONS INVESTIGATORS Collection investigators located in each judicial district are responsible for maximizing the collection of court-imposed fines, fees, and restitution. Recoveries are credited to the General Fund, victim restitution, victims compensation and support programs, and various law enforcement, trial court, probation, and other funds. Investigators are supported from cash funds (from the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund and the Fines Collection Cash Fund), as well as grants from local Victims and Witness Assistance Law Enforcement Boards. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section16-11-101.6, C.RS. [Collection of fines and fees]; Section 16-18.5-104, C.R.S. [Initial collections investigation]; Section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (III) (C), C.R.S. [Investigators in each judicial district]; Section 18-1.3-602, C.R.S. [Restitution] REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $7,561,958, including $6,664,417cash funds, $897,541 reappropriated funds, and 121.2 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS This line item provides state funding for all adult drug treatment courts, mental health treatment courts, family dependency treatment courts, and veterans treatment courts that have been implemented by various judicial districts. This line item also provides funding for all DUI treatment courts except for the Denver County Sobriety Court. This line item appropriation is intended to encourage districts to implement and operate problem-solving courts in a manner that has been proven effective in reducing the need for jail and prison beds, reducing crime rates, increasing treatment participation and effectiveness, and increasing employment among offenders. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Article VI of the State Constitution [Vestment of judicial power]; Sections 13-3-101 (9) and 13-5-144, C.R.S. [Veterans treatment courts]; Section 13-5-101 et seq., C.R.S [District courts]; Section 13-6-101 et seq., C.R.S. [County courts]. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $ 3,507,757, including $231,839 General Fund and $ 3,275,918 cash funds from the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund, and 36.7 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which includes JUD R16 (Technical Adjustments). The following table details the recommendation.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS



TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $3,861,588 $657,002 $3,204,586 $0 $0 43.6

TOTAL $3,861,588 $657,002 $3,204,586 $0 $0 43.6






TOTAL $3,507,757 $231,839 $3,275,918 $0 $0 36.7

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($353,831) ($425,163) $71,332 $0 $0 (6.9)

Percentage Change (9.2%) (64.7%) 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% (15.8%)

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $3,507,757 $231,839 $3,275,918 $0 $0 36.7


LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". These are costs associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and/or the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. This is one of two line items administered by the Office of the State Court Administrator that provides funding for mandated costs. This line item provides funding for foreign language services. Interpreters translates orally and translators translates written text. This line item supports a total of 33.0 FTE, including: 2.0 FTE Court Programs Analysts that administer the program; 2.0 FTE Court Translators who translate written text (e.g. forms, instructional documentation, signage, and communications of the court) from Spanish to English and vice versa, and coordinate requests for translations in languages other than Spanish as needed; and the following 29.0 FTE interpreters in judicial districts:

14 Managing Interpreters (certified Spanish interpreters who provide interpretation services, perform administrative duties, and support their assigned district by providing subject matter expertise);

One Interpreter Scheduler (an individual who provides many of the same services as Managing Interpreters but is currently in the process of achieving certification); and

14 Court Interpreters (certified Spanish interpreters whose primary function is to interpret for their assigned district and, when their services are not required, provide administrative support for the local interpreter offices).

In addition, the 20th judicial district houses the Center for Telephone Interpreting, which provides over-the-phone statewide Spanish interpretation for in-court proceedings, court customer needs, and probation. Interpreting assistance can be scheduled in advance or provided when needed. The Center also coordinates interpretation for languages other than Spanish upon request.



Finally, this line item supports payments to certified language interpreters who provide contract services. The Department contracts with independent certified Spanish interpreters as well as interpreters of other languages. Certified Spanish interpreters are paid $35 per hour, plus compensation for travel time (at half the hourly rate) and mileage. BACKGROUND INFORMATION – NEED FOR LANGUAGE INTERPRETER SERVICES Language interpreter services are critical for the operation of the courts. A judge must be able to understand a party’s response, to hear a victim’s concerns, and be assured that the parties in court understand the terms and conditions of court orders and sentences. (Presidential) Executive Order 13166 requires that all recipients of federal funding develop a plan for providing that access. Colorado’s plan for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons is in Chief Justice Directive 06-03. This Chief Justice Directive indicates that the court shall pay for interpreter services for all parties in interest during or ancillary to a court proceeding, including:

Facilitation of communication outside of a judicial officer's presence in order to allow a court proceeding to continue as scheduled, including pre-trial conferences between defendants and district attorneys in order to relay a plea offer immediately prior to a court appearance or to discuss a continuance;

Facilitation of communication between clients and state-funded counsel;

Facilitation of communication with parties of interest in court mandated programs (e.g., family court facilitations and mediations); and

Completion of evaluations and investigations ordered by and performed for the purpose of aiding the court in making a determination.

The court may provide and pay for language interpretation for limited English proficient persons other than parties in interest directly impacted by a court proceeding. The court shall not arrange, provide, or pay for language interpretation during or ancillary to a court proceeding to facilitate communication with attorneys, prosecutors, or other parties related to a case involving LEP individuals for the purpose of gathering background information, investigation, trial preparation, witness interviews, or client representation at a future proceeding; for communications relating to probation treatment services. Prosecutors and parties' attorneys are expected to arrange for language interpretation for case preparation and general communication with parties outside of court proceedings at their own expense. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 [prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based upon national origin by, among other things, failing to provide meaningful access to individuals who are limited English proficient (LEP)7]; Sections 13-90-113 and 114, C.R.S. [Payment of language interpreters]. REQUEST: The Department requests $$6,594,260, including $6,544,260General Fund and $50,000 cash funds, and 34.0 FTE. The source of requested cash funds is fees and cost recoveries.

7 Individuals who are LEP do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.



RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which included JUD R5 (Language translators) and is detailed in the following table.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND

TRANSLATORS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $6,222,165 $6,172,165 $50,000 $0 $0 33.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $6,372,165 $6,322,165 $50,000 $0 $0 33.0






TOTAL $6,744,260 $6,694,260 $50,000 $0 $0 34.0




Request Above/(Below) Recommendation ($150,000) ($150,000) $0 $0 $0 0.0

COURTHOUSE SECURITY Established in 2007 (S.B. 07-118), the Courthouse Security Grant Program provides grant funds to counties with limited financial resources for use in improving courthouse security efforts. Such efforts include security staffing, security equipment, training, and court security emergency needs. Grants are potentially available to all counties with highest priority given to counties meeting at least two of the following criteria:

Population below the state median;

Per capital income below the state median;

Property tax revenues below the state median;

Population living below the federal poverty line above the state median. A court security specialist (1.0 FTE) administers the grant program, and the Court Security Cash Fund Commission evaluates grant applications. The program is supported by the Court Security Cash Fund, which consists of a $5 surcharge on: docket fees and jury fees for certain civil actions; docket fees for criminal convictions, special proceeding filings, and certain traffic infraction penalties; filing fees for certain probate filings; and fees for certain filings on water matters. Moneys in the Fund are to be used for grants and related administrative costs. County-level local security teams may apply to the State Court Administrator's Office for grants.


https://www.coloradocourthousesecurity.com/


STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-1-201, et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $3,256,785, including $379,465 General Fund and $2,877,320 cash funds from the Court Security Cash Fund and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, COURTHOUSE SECURITY TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $3,253,564 $379,465 $2,874,099 $0 $0 1.0

TOTAL $3,253,564 $379,465 $2,874,099 $0 $0 1.0



Annualize prior budget actions 2,765 0 2,765 0 0 0.0


TOTAL $3,256,785 $379,465 $2,877,320 $0 $0 1.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $3,221 $0 $3,221 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $3,256,785 $379,465 $2,877,320 $0 $0 1.0


APPROPRIATION TO THE UNDERFUNDED COURTHOUSE FACILITY CASH FUND – and – UNDERFUNDED COURTHOUSE FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM Established by H.B. 14-1096, the Underfunded Courthouse Facilities Grant Program provides supplemental funding for courthouse facility projects in counties in need of financial assistance for courthouse facility projects. Grants are limited to counties meeting at least two of the following four criteria, with counties meeting all four criteria given highest priority:

Population below the state median;

Per capital income below the state median;

Property tax revenues below the state median;

Population living below the federal poverty line above the state median. The Underfunded Courthouse Facility Cash Fund Commission evaluates grant applications. Grant funds must be used for master planning services, matching funds, leveraging grant funding opportunities, or addressing emergency needs due to the imminent closure of a court facility. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-1-301 et seq., C.R.S.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=undfunct


REQUEST: The Department requests a $3,000,000 General Fund appropriation to the Underfunded Courthouse Facility Cash Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

COURTHOUSE FURNISHINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE Formerly: Courthouse Capital / Infrastructure Maintenance Statute requires each county to provide and maintain adequate courtrooms and other court facilities. However, the State is statutorily required pay for the "operations, salaries, and other expenses of all courts of record within the state, except for county courts in the city and county of Denver and municipal courts." Pursuant to the latter provision, the General Assembly annually appropriates funds for courthouse facilities, including the following types of expenditures:

furnishings for new, expanded, and remodeled courthouse facilities (including probation facilities);

costs associated with the temporary relocation of a court;

shelving;

phone and communication systems;

audiovisual systems; and

wireless access. In addition, staff in the State Court Administrator's Office provides technical support and information for Judicial Department managers and county officials with regard to the planning, design, and construction of new or remodeled court and probation facilities. Staff is available to provide support throughout the design process including the selection of design professionals and contractors, space planning, conceptual design, schematic design, design development, and construction administration. Staff also offers technical assistance and consultation regarding courthouse security issues, courtroom technology, furnishings, fixtures, and associated equipment. The annual appropriation for courthouse capital/ infrastructure maintenance varies significantly depending on the number and size of county construction projects. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-104, C.R.S. [State shall fund state courts, except county courts in Denver and municipal courts]; Section 13-3-108, C.R.S. [Each county shall provide and maintain adequate courtrooms and other court facilities]. REQUEST: The Department requests $3,550,009 General Fund from the Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund. The following table details the projects.




Boulder Boulder County Jail Courtroom reconfiguration, including replacement of furnishings and A/V upgrades.

$0 $16,000 $85,800 $0 $15,605 $117,405

Centennial New courtroom on 3rd floor of Courthouse 2 at the Arapahoe County Justice Center and other 3rd floor space remodeled

0 45,000 478,050 15,095 9,570 547,715






Denver Mobile shelving upgrade. 0 0 26,500 0 0 26,500

Denver Buildout of 2 new Courtroom for new District Court Judges- Costs not covered in SB19-043

180,762 97,000 33,410 0 311,172

Huerfano New courthouse 1,500 271,200 378,900 25,000 298,667 975,267

Jeffco Relocation of Probation to the Administrative side of Jeffco Admin Building

42,000 658,750 150,000 0 850,750

Pitkin Courthouse remodel scheduled to finish in FY21 130,200 233,740 0 0 363,940

Weld Expand conference room 200 4,000 60,700 650 15,670 81,220

Weld Two additional courtrooms in Centennial Building. 0 1,000 227,100 24,800 23,140 276,040

Total: $1,700 $690,162 $2,246,540 $248,955 $362,652 $3,550,009

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a General Fund appropriation of $3,550,009.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, COURTHOUSE FURNISHINGS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $4,135,390 $4,135,390 $0 $0 $0 0.0

Other Legislation $1,802,281 $1,802,281 $0 $0 $0 0.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) (1,475,522) (1,475,522) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $4,462,149 $4,462,149 $0 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $4,462,149 $4,462,149 $0 $0 $0 0.0


Annualize prior budget actions (2,659,868) (2,659,868) 0 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation (1,802,281) (1,802,281) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $3,550,009 $3,550,009 $0 $0 $0 0.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($912,140) ($912,140) $0 $0 $0 0.0

Percentage Change (20.4%) (20.4%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $3,799,097 $3,799,097 $0 $0 $0 0.0

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation $249,088 $249,088 $0 $0 $0 0.0

SENIOR JUDGE PROGRAM Upon written agreement with the Chief Justice prior to retirement, a justice or judge may perform temporary judicial duties for between 60 and 90 days a year. These agreements may not exceed three years (most are currently one-year contracts), but a retiree may enter into subsequent agreements for a maximum of 12 years. These retired judges cover for sitting judges who are on vacation or sick leave, have an over-scheduled docket, are taking judicial training, or have conflicts of interest. Retired judges provide flexibility in coverage as they can fill a temporary need anywhere in the state. The State Court Administrator's Office or the Chief Justice may also call upon Senior Judges to perform special duties related to specific types of cases or needs, and the Court of Appeals may ask Senior Judges to handle overscheduled dockets, write opinions, and operate the court's pre-argument settlement program.



A senior judge receives reimbursement for travel expenses for out-of-town assignments, and is compensated with a temporary PERA retirement benefit increase. For a 60 day contract, the increase is equal to 20 percent of the annual salary of individuals serving in the same position as that held by the retiree at the time of retirement. Thus, for example, a retired county court judge who serves as a county court judge in the senior judge program, will continue to draw his or her PERA pension and, during a year in which he or she has a 60 day contract, will receive an additional PERA benefit equal to 20 percent of the salary of a sitting county judge. The PERA increase will be paid in equal amounts that are spread over the entire year. If the retired judge does not have a contract the next year, his or her PERA payments will return to the pre-senior-service level; there is no permanent bump to PERA benefits. This appropriation is used to pay for travel expenses during out-of-town assignments and to reimburse the PERA Judicial Division Trust Fund for the payment of senior judges' additional benefits during the previous fiscal year (i.e., additional PERA payments to senior judges serving in FY 2018-19 are reimbursed through payments to PERA from this appropriation in FY 2019-20). Travel expenditures are reimbursed in the fiscal year in which they are incurred. In FY 2017-18, payments to PERA for FY 2016-17 service by senior judges totaled $1,350,236, which equaled 91% (=$1,350,236/$1,487,275) of the expenditure from the line item. The Department currently has 43 contracts with senior judges. All the contracts are for 60 days; there are currently no 90 day contracts. The 60 days of service is seldom consecutive. The judge might work a week in one court, filling in for a judge who is ill, be off for several weeks, and then work two weeks in another court to help relieve an overcrowded docket. The senior judge stops working after day 60. Senior judge math: Since there are 260 work days in year (= 52 weeks * 5 days per week), a 60 day contract requires a senior judge to work 23 percent (=60/260) of the days in a year. In return for working 23 percent of the days, the senior judge receives 20 percent of a judge’s annual salary, so the state pays slightly less for senior judges than it pays for regular judges. In addition, the state’s 43 contracts with senior judges for 60 days is the equivalent of having 9.89 (= 43*0.23) additional judges on the bench. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 24-51-1105, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $1,681,769, including $381,769 General Fund and $1,300,000 cash funds from the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. This program is a cost-effective way of managing dockets and covering judges' leave time.

JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING This line item supports education and training for judicial officers. New judges attend a five-day orientation training which addresses the transition from lawyer to judge, followed by a 2½-day advanced orientation session which addresses some specific case type issues and topics such as jury management, court security, evidentiary issues, findings and conclusions of law, etc. For all judges, the Department's overall goal is to provide timely and structured learning experiences, operational



training, and developmental activities that support judicial officers’ continuing educational and professional needs in leadership, case management, and legal matter subject expertise. This line item also supports training and technical assistance on procedural fairness for judges, district administrators, chief probation officers, and senior staff in the Office of the State Court Administrator. The four basic expectations that encompass procedural fairness include:

Voice – the ability to participate in the case by expressing one's viewpoint;

Neutrality – consistently applied legal principles, unbiased decision makers, and a "transparency" about how decisions are made;

Respectful treatment – individuals are treated with dignity and their rights are obviously protected; and

Trustworthy authorities – authorities are benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to help the litigants – this trust is garnered by listening to individuals and by explaining or justifying decisions that address the litigants' needs.

According to the Department, substantial research suggests that public perception of procedural fairness is associated with higher levels of compliance with court orders and lower levels of recidivism. This line item is supported by General Fund and the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-102, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $1,032,588 and 2.0 FTE, including $36,650 General Fund and $995,938 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

OFFICE OF JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION In January 1967, Colorado's Constitution was amended to repeal a provision providing for the election of judges, and to add a provision enacting a system of judicial nominating commissions, Governor-appointed judges, and retention elections for justices and judges. This line item provides funding for the State Commission on Judicial Performance, which is responsible for developing and administering the judicial performance evaluation system. Specifically, this office is responsible for:

Staffing the state and district commissions, and training their members;

Collecting and distributing data on judicial performance evaluations;

Conducting public education efforts concerning the performance evaluation process;

Measuring public awareness of the process through regular polling; and

Other duties as assigned by the State Commission. The Office is supported by the State Commission on Judicial Performance Cash Fund, which receives revenue from a $5 docket fee on certain criminal actions in district courts and a $3 docket fee on certain traffic infractions. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-5.5-101 et seq., C.R.S.



REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $853,713, including $314,500 General Fund and $539,213 cash funds, and 2.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

FAMILY VIOLENCE JUSTICE GRANTS This line item provides funding for the State Court Administrator to award grants to qualifying organizations providing civil legal services to indigent Colorado residents. This program is the only state-funded grant program for civil legal services in Colorado. Grant funds may be used to provide legal advice, representation, and advocacy for and on behalf of indigent clients who are victims of family violence (typically assistance with restraining orders, divorce proceedings, and custody matters). Colorado Legal Services, which provides legal services in almost every county, typically receives more than 80 to 90 percent of grant moneys each year. In addition to General Fund appropriations for this grant program, the State Court Administrator is authorized to receive gifts, grants, and donations for this program; such funds are credited to the Family Violence Justice Fund. Further, S.B. 09-068 increased the fees for petitions and responses in divorce proceedings by $10 each (from $220 and $106, respectively); half of the resulting revenue is credited to the Family Violence Justice Fund (providing an estimated $155,033 in new fund revenues).8 The act directs the Judicial Department to use this fee revenue to award grants to qualifying organizations that provide services for or on behalf of indigent persons and their families who are married, separated, or divorced. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 14-4-107, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $2,670,000, including $2,500,000 General Fund and $170,000 cash funds from the Family Violence Justice Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which is the same amount appropriated for FY 2019-20. The following table provides a recent history of appropriations for this program.

RECENT HISTORY OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FAMILY VIOLENCE JUSTICE GRANTS

FISCAL YEAR GENERAL FUND CASH FUNDS TOTAL

2002-03 $500,000 $0 500,000

2003-04 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0

2005-06 500,000 0 500,000

2006-07 500,000 0 500,000

2007-08 500,000 0 500,000

2008-09 750,000 0 750,000

2009-10 750,000 143,430 893,430

2010-11 750,000 143,430 893,430

8 The other half of fee revenue is credited to the Colorado Domestic Abuse Program Fund, administered by the Department of Human Services.


https://www.coloradolegalservices.org/


RECENT HISTORY OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FAMILY VIOLENCE JUSTICE GRANTS

FISCAL YEAR GENERAL FUND CASH FUNDS TOTAL

2011-12 458,430 216,570 675,000

2012-13 458,430 170,000 628,439

2013-14 1,000,000 170,000 1,170,000

2014-15 2,000,000 170,000 2,170,000

2015-16 2,500,000 170,000 2,670,000

2016-17 2,500,000 170,000 2,670,000

2017-18 2,500,000 170,000 2,670,000

2018-19 2,500,000 170,000 2,670,000

2019-20 2,500,000 170,000 2,670,000

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMS This line item provides funding for a pilot program in four judicial districts to facilitate and encourage diversion of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to restorative justice practices. This line item also supports related research and data collection efforts by the Restorative Justice Coordinating Council (Council). This line item is supported by the Restorative Justice Surcharge Fund, which consists of revenues from a $10 surcharge on each person convicted of a crime and each juvenile adjudicated of a crime (minus five percent that is retained by the clerk of the court for administrative costs). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 18-25-101 (3) (a), C.R.S. [Restorative justice surcharge]; Section 19-2-213 [Restorative Justice Coordinating Council] REQUEST: The Department requests $1,128,022 cash funds and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an approval of the request.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY ADULT PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAMS This line item provides funding for district attorneys' adult pretrial diversion programs. A five-member Diversion Funding Committee9 is responsible for:

developing funding guidelines and an application process for district attorneys to request state funds to support an adult pretrial diversion program;

reviewing funding requests; and

allocating state funding for adult pretrial diversion programs that meet the established statutory guidelines.

District attorneys that receive funding are required to collect data and provide a status report to the Judicial Department concerning its adult pretrial diversion program.

9 The Diversion Funding Committee consists of the following individuals or (in most cases) their designees: (a) the Attorney General; (b) the Executive Director of the Colorado District Attorney’s Association [the CDAC]; (c) the State Public Defender; (d) the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety; and (e) the State Court Administrator.



The act that created this program (H.B. 13-1156) provided funding for 0.5 FTE to develop guidelines and procedures for distribution of funding and to perform regular oversight activities associated with monitoring and expenditure of funds. This position continues to be supported through the “General Courts Administration” line item. In FY 2013-14, $387,223 General Fund was made available for grants. Since FY 2014-15, a total of $477,000 has been made available annually for grants through this line item. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-115, C.R.S. [Diversion Funding Committee]; Section 18-1.3-101, C.R.S. [Pretrial diversion programs, including requirements for district attorneys that receive state funds for such program] REQUEST: The Department requests an appropriation of $1,042,705 General Fund and $169,000 reappropriated funds that trace to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund. The General Fund request reflects JUD R6 Adult diversion program expansion, which provides $473,705 more GF. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

FAMILY FRIENDLY COURT PROGRAM Many persons who attend court proceedings (e.g. plaintiffs, respondents, defendants, parents of defendants, and jurors) are responsible for the care of young children. Childcare issues can make it difficult for these people to participate in the proceedings. The Family-friendly Court Program provides funding for courts to create facilities or services that meet these needs. The program is funded with a $1.00 surcharge on traffic violations. The Judicial Department allocates money from the Family-friendly Court Program Cash Fund to judicial districts that apply for funding for the creation, operation, and enhancement of family-friendly court facilities. The goal of the program is to provide child care services for families attending court proceedings, either through on-site centers and waiting rooms located in courthouses or through vouchers for private childcare services. The programs also provide supervised parenting time and a location for the transfer of the physical custody of a child from one parent to another. In addition, the programs help families connect with relevant community services, such as youth mentoring, crime and dropout prevention, employment counseling and training, financial management, legal counseling, and substance abuse programs. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-113, C.R.S. LINK: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=jp3famfri REQUEST: The Department requests $270,000 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which reflects JUD R13 ,Increase spending authority for Family-friendly Court Program grants and a technical request that moved the FTE.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT This line item supports 1.0 FTE to coordinate the courts’ role in child support enforcement with state and county child support enforcement offices. The purpose is to increase the collection of


https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=jp3famfri


court-ordered child support payments. This individual acts as a liaison between the courts and federal and state offices of child support enforcement, and is a member of the Child Support Commission. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-5-140, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $114,719 (including $39,005 General Fund and $75,714 federal funds) and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, which is the same amount that is appropriated for FY 2019-20.

MENTAL HEALTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVERSION GRANT PROGRAM Senate Bill 18-249 (a JBC bill) established the Mental Health Criminal Justice Diversion Grant Program to support up to four pre-plea local-level mental health pilot programs. These programs divert individuals with mental health conditions who have been charged with low-level criminal offenses out of the criminal justice system into community treatment programs. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 18-1.3-101.5, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests $1,195,573 and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, MENTAL HEALTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE

DIVERSION GRANT PROGRAM TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $750,000 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 1.0


TOTAL $1,192,543 $1,192,543 $0 $0 $0 1.0





TOTAL $1,195,573 $1,195,573 $0 $0 $0 1.0




Request Above/(Below) Recommendation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (0.0)

STATEWIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COURT LIAISON PROGRAM



Senate Bill 18-251 (a JBC bill) established the Statewide Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program. The program allocates funding to each judicial district to contract with local behavioral health professionals to facilitate communication and collaboration between judicial and behavioral health systems and promote positive outcomes for individuals living with mental health or co-occurring behavioral health conditions. The bill appropriated $1,997,112 General Fund to the Department for FY 2018-19 and provided 0.9 FTE. The Legislative Council Staff Fiscal Note indicated that the bill would require a $2,636,987 General Fund appropriation and 1.0 FTE in FY 2019-20. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 16-11.9-201 through 205, C.R.S. REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION:

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, STATEWIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

COURT LIAISON PROGRAM TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $2,636,987 $2,636,987 $0 $0 $0 1.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0

TOTAL $2,636,987 $2,636,987 $0 $0 $0 2.0






TOTAL $3,010,581 $3,010,581 $0 $0 $0 11.0





COMPENSATION FOR EXONERATED PERSONS This line item provides funding to compensate persons who are found actually innocent of felony crimes after serving time in jail, prison, or juvenile placement. If found actually innocent, the exonerated person is eligible to receive the following benefits:

monetary compensation in the amount of $70,000 for each year incarcerated, plus an additional $25,000 for each year he or she served on parole and $50,000 for each year he or she was incarcerated and awaited execution;

tuition waivers at state institutions of higher education, if the exonerated person was incarcerated for at least three years;

compensation for child support payments and associated interest owed by the exonerated person that were incurred during his or her incarceration;

reasonable attorney fees; and



the amount of any fine, penalty, court costs, or restitution imposed as a result of the exonerated person's wrongful conviction.

The act requires the State Court Administrator to make an annual payment of $100,000 to an exonerated person that is adjusted annually for inflation and continues until the total amount of compensation owed by the State is paid. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 13-3-114 and 13-65-101 through 103, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests no appropriation for this line item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request.

STATEWIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COURT LIAISON PROGRAM Senate Bill 18-251 (a JBC bill) established the Statewide Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program. The program allocates funding to each judicial district to contract with local behavioral health professionals to facilitate communication and collaboration between judicial and behavioral health. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 16-11.9-201 through 205, C.R.S. REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION: The following table summarizes the request and recommendation.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS, STATEWIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

COURT LIAISON PROGRAM TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $2,636,987 $2,636,987 $0 $0 $0 1.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0

TOTAL $2,636,987 $2,636,987 $0 $0 $0 2.0






TOTAL $3,010,581 $3,010,581 $0 $0 $0 11.0





APPROPRIATION TO THE EVICTION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND



and

EVICTION LEGAL DEFENSE GRANT PROGRAM

These line items were added to the Long Bill by S.B. 19-180 (Eviction Legal Defense Fund), which creates the Eviction Legal Defense Fund, from which grants are awarded via the Eviction Legal Defense Grant Program appropriation to nonprofit organizations that provide legal advice, counseling, and representation to indigent clients facing or at risk of eviction STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 13-40-127, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests continuation appropriations of $750,000 General Fund for the Appropriation to the Eviction Legal Defense Fund line item and $750,000 reappropriated funds for the Eviction Legal Defense Grant Program line item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends these requests.

(D) RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER This Long Bill subsection includes appropriations related to the operations of the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center. The line items in this section are supported by the Justice Center Cash Fund, which consists of docket fees, tenant lease payments, and parking fees paid by employees and members of the public who utilize the Carr Center parking garage. In addition, the cash funds appropriation for Debt Service Payments includes the federal share of annual debt service payments associated with "Build America" certificates of participation. Reappropriated funds reflect transfers of appropriations to the Department of Law and to the State Court Administrator's Office for leased space in the Carr Center and expenditures from the new Justice Center Maintenance Fund. The remainder of the money from tenant lease payments is reflected as cash funds. For purposes of simplicity, the General Fund and reappropriated funds are only reflected in the Debt Service Payments line item. The following table details staff’s recommendation for this subsection.

RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $33,882,319 $4,492,915 $21,547,917 $7,841,487 $0 2.0

TOTAL $33,882,319 $4,492,915 $21,547,917 $7,841,487 $0 2.0





Annualize prior budget actions (3,744,617) (109,497) (3,244,616) (390,504) 0 0.0

TOTAL $24,638,366 $3,883,418 $13,303,965 $7,450,983 $0 2.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($9,243,953) ($609,497) ($8,243,952) ($390,504) $0 0.0

Percentage Change (27.3%) (13.6%) (38.3%) (5.0%) 0.0% (2)



RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE



Recommendation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2008 (S.B. 08-206) the General Assembly authorized the State to enter into lease-purchase agreements for the development and construction of a new history museum and a state justice center. The act established the following limits on these projects:

Museum: Principal component of the lease-purchase agreements may not to exceed $85 million. The annual rental and lease-purchase payments may not exceed $4,998,000 and the associated term may not exceed 37 years.

Justice Center: Principal component of the lease-purchase agreements may not exceed $275 million. The annual rental and lease-purchase payments may not exceed $19,000,000 and the associated term may not exceed 38 years.

In July 2009, project financing was secured through a single issuance for both projects totaling $338.8 million. This issuance included two components: $39.0 million in traditional tax-exempt certificates of participation (COPs); and $299.8 million in taxable "Build America" COPs, a new financing mechanism made available through the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Build America COPs offered lower costs to public entities because the federal government subsidizes about a third of the interest paid on the project. This financing resulted in debt payments of less than $19 million per year for 33 years (September 2012 through September 2045). Thus, total annual payments for both projects are more than $5 million lower than the caps established in S.B. 08-206, and these payments will be made for 33 years rather than the 37 and 38 year terms allowed by S.B. 08-206.

PERSONAL SERVICES This line item supports three types of expenditures, which are described below.

Colorado State Patrol Services. The Department purchases security services from the Colorado State Patrol. The appropriation covers the costs of a total of 15.0 FTE (11.0 FTE security officers, 3.0 FTE troopers, and 1.0 FTE supervisor) that provide weapons screening at two public entrances during business hours, 24-hour roving coverage, and the staffing of an information/security desk.

Facility Staff. Two state employees manage and oversee the operational and engineering aspects of the Carr Center. A Building Manager is responsible for handling all tenant inquiries, and coordinating maintenance work among building staff, vendors, and contractors. The Building Manager also oversees the shared services within the Center, such as a copy center, mail room, food services, fitness center, and conference/training facility. The Building Manager also monitors performance of all third party vendor contracts, and reviews price quotes for the procurement of parts, services, and labor for the building. A Building Engineer is responsible for the supervision of engineering operations, including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and life/safety equipment and systems, as well as all inspections and licensing matters. The Building Engineer also directs the activities of contract engineering staff.



Contract Services Related to Facility Management. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $1,635,939 cash funds from the Justice Center Cash Fund and 2.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

OPERATING EXPENSES This line item supports three types of expenditures, which are described below.

Various Contract Services. The Department contracts with Cushman Wakefield to act as the management company, providing contract engineering staff, first floor reception services in the office tower, and related administrative costs. The Department also contracts with Standard Parking to operate and maintain the parking garage, which is located beside the Colorado History Museum. Finally, the Department also contracts with a variety of other private vendors for various services, including custodial, maintenance contracts and supplies, grounds maintenance, and the copy center.

Utilities. This line item covers electricity, gas, water, and sewer expenditures, which are monitored and managed by the Building Manager.

Operating Expenses for the 2.0 FTE Facility Staff appropriated on the Personal Services line. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of funding, or $4,026,234 cash funds the Justice Center Cash Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

APPROPRIATION TO THE JUSTICE CENTER MAINTENANCE FUND and

EVICTION LEGAL DEFENSE GRANT PROGRAM

APPROPRIATION TO THE JUSTICE CENTER MAINTENANCE FUND The Justice Center Maintenance Fund was established by 18-267 (Justice Center Maintenance Fund) to pay future controlled maintenance needs of the Carr Center. Based on projected controlled maintenance needs, appropriations are made into the fund. As actual needs arise, appropriations are made from the fund. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S.



REQUEST: For FY 2019-20, the fund received an appropriation $4,600,000 cash funds to establish a fund balance. For subsequent years, the Department requests that the appropriation be reduced to $1.5 million. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving this request.

JUSTICE CENTER MAINTENCE FUND EXPENDITURES STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S. REQUEST: For FY 2019-20, an appropriation of $1,788,538 cash funds was made from the Justice Center Maintenance Fund for FY 2019-20 controlled maintenance needs. For FY 2020-21, needs have declined and the appropriation is reduced to $1,288,538. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving this request.

DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS This line item was added to this section of the budget in FY 2015-16, when appropriations for lease purchase payments (certificates of participation) were moved from the capital construction section of the Long Bill to the operating section. Senate Bill 08-206 authorized the State to enter into lease-purchase agreements for the development and construction of a new museum and a state justice center. This line item appropriation covers the lease purchase payments that are due in September and March each fiscal year. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-32-101 (7), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests an appropriation of $16,187,655, including $3,883,418 General Fund, $6,141,792 cash funds from the Justice Center Cash Fund, and $6,162,445 reappropriated funds from the Justice Center Cash Fund. The total appropriation reflects the subsidy from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These funds cover a portion of the interest costs associated with the project financing that was secured through taxable “Build America” certificates of participation. The reappropriated funds amount is categorized as reappropriated funds as it reflects appropriations to state agencies for Carr Center leased space that will be credited to the Justice Center Cash Fund, including payments from the Department of Law and payments from the Central Appropriations subsection above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. The following tables, provided by the Department, detail the projected debt service payments through FY 2045-46, along with the associated sources of funds.

RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER: DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS

FISCAL

YEAR

DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR TOTAL PAYMENT

TOTAL

PAYMENT FEDERAL

SUBSIDY NET

PAYMENT GENERAL

FUND CASH FUNDS

REAPPROPRIATED

FUNDS

2016-17 $21,577,604 ($5,899,159) $15,678,445 $4,806,525 $11,031,746 $5,739,333



RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER: DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS

FISCAL

YEAR

DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR TOTAL PAYMENT

TOTAL

PAYMENT FEDERAL

SUBSIDY NET

PAYMENT GENERAL

FUND CASH FUNDS

REAPPROPRIATED

FUNDS

2017-18 21,593,531 (5,913,165) 15,680,366 4,704,365 11,047,673 5,841,493

2018-19 21,565,990 (5,925,946) 15,640,044 4,571,677 11,047,673 5,946,640

2019-20 21,840,338 (5,927,368) 15,912,970 4,571,677 11,214,982 6,053,679

2020-21 21,687,647 (5,828,426) 15,859,221 4,310,020 11,214,982 6,162,646

2021-22 20,811,564 (5,458,797) 15,352,767 3,323,009 11,214,982 6,273,573

2022-23 20,707,408 (5,354,093) 15,353,315 3,105,929 11,214,982 6,386,498

2023-24 20,592,716 (5,238,701) 15,354,015 2,876,280 11,214,982 6,501,455

2024-25 20,471,435 (5,117,502) 15,353,933 2,637,973 11,214,982 6,618,481

2025-26 20,342,505 (4,988,377) 15,354,129 2,389,911 11,214,982 6,737,613

2026-27 19,745,330 (4,690,116) 15,055,215 1,671,458 11,214,982 6,858,890

2027-28 19,603,826 (4,549,589) 15,054,237 1,406,495 11,214,982 6,982,350

2028-29 19,454,666 (4,401,133) 15,053,533 1,131,652 11,214,982 7,108,033

2029-30 19,299,603 (4,247,111) 15,052,492 848,644 11,214,982 7,235,977

2030-31 19,139,982 (4,086,244) 15,053,738 558,775 11,214,982 7,366,225

2031-32 18,653,659 (3,804,031) 14,849,628 0 11,154,842 7,498,817

2032-33 18,474,251 (3,625,738) 14,848,513 0 10,840,455 7,633,796

2033-34 18,290,026 (3,437,009) 14,853,017 0 10,518,822 7,771,204

2034-35 18,095,052 (3,242,768) 14,852,284 0 10,183,966 7,911,086

2035-36 17,890,517 (3,039,931) 14,850,586 0 9,837,032 8,053,485

2036-37 16,905,212 (2,556,824) 14,348,388 0 8,706,764 8,198,448

2037-38 16,682,208 (2,335,273) 14,346,935 0 8,336,188 8,346,020

2038-39 16,450,297 (2,103,604) 14,346,693 0 7,954,049 8,496,248

2039-40 15,491,570 (1,610,550) 13,881,021 0 6,842,389 8,649,181

2040-41 15,236,686 (1,356,840) 13,879,846 0 6,431,820 8,804,866

2041-42 14,965,869 (1,085,304) 13,880,565 0 6,002,516 8,963,354

2042-43 14,684,220 (802,977) 13,881,243 0 5,559,526 9,124,694

2043-44 14,389,742 (509,160) 13,880,582 0 5,100,804 9,288,939

2044-45 14,085,276 (203,096) 13,882,179 0 4,629,136 9,456,139

2045-46 4,902,771 (55,220) 4,847,551 0 0 4,902,771



(3) TRIAL COURTS This section of the budget provides funding for operation of the State trial courts, which include district courts in 22 judicial districts, water courts, and county courts. District courts preside over felony criminal matters, civil claims, juvenile matters, probate, mental health, and divorce proceedings. In addition, district courts handle appeals from municipal and county courts, and review decisions of administrative boards and agencies. The General Assembly establishes judicial districts and the number of judges for each district in statute; these judges serve renewable 6-year terms.10 The General Assembly established seven water divisions in the State based on the drainage patterns of major rivers in Colorado. Each water division is staffed by a division engineer, a district court judge who is designated as the water judge by the Colorado Supreme Court, a water referee appointed by the water judge, and a water clerk assigned by the district court. Water judges have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the determination of water rights and the use and administration of water.11 County courts have limited jurisdiction, handling civil actions involving no more than $25,000, misdemeanor cases, civil and criminal traffic infractions, and felony complaints. County courts also issue search warrants and protection orders in cases involving domestic violence. In addition, county courts handle appeals from municipal courts. The General Assembly establishes the number of judges for each county in statute; these judges serve renewable 4-year terms.12 The following table summarizes the staff recommendations for the Trial Courts.

TRIAL COURTS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $179,809,239 $145,303,428 $30,630,811 $2,250,000 $1,625,000 1,872.1


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 418,780 388,780 30,000 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $185,086,569 $150,503,397 $30,708,172 $2,250,000 $1,625,000 1,921.5



JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments 0 (456,056) 456,056 0 0 0.0



246,197 246,197 0 0 0 1.3

JUD BA4 Contract attorney rate increase 253,659 253,659 0 0 0 0.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 546,706 618,038 (71,332) 0 0 5.9



173,645 173,645 0 0 0 2.1

10 See Article VI, Sections 9 through 12 of the Colorado Constitution; and Section 13-5-101 et seq., C.R.S. 11 See Sections 37-92-203 and 204, C.R.S. 12 See Article VI, Sections 16 and 17 of the Colorado Constitution; Section 13-6-101 et seq., C.R.S.



TRIAL COURTS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

CDAC R1 District attorney mandated costs

109,851 79,851 30,000 0 0 0.0


Annualize prior budget actions 5,303,103 5,285,816 17,287 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $196,223,154 $161,212,674 $31,135,480 $2,250,000 $1,625,000 1,975.6





$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – TRIAL COURTS

JUD R7 CLASS C AND D COUNTY JUDGE FTE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $246,197 General Fund and 1.3 FTE for the Trial Court Programs to fund increased payments to Class C and D county judges that have resulted from (1) caseload/workload growth and (2) a revision to the methodology used to compute the fractional appointments of county judges in small counties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. Background: The state constitution requires that all counties have a county judge. Colorado's 48 class C and D counties, which are the smallest counties in the state as measured by population, have county judges who mostly work part time. Some of the part-time judges work as little as one day per week. Section 13-30-103 (1)(l) (II), C.R.S., requires the Judicial Department to determine the fraction of a judicial FTE to allocate to each of these counties based on average county court case filings over the prior three years and the amount of time it should take a judge to process those filings. The result might be a need for 0.44 judicial FTE in a given county, for example. When this FTE fraction rises or falls, the Judicial Department must adjust the judge's pay to that percentage of a county-court judge's full salary. Statute thus mandates salary changes that move in step with the calculated judicial appointment fraction. Section 13-30-103 (1)(l)(II), C.R.S., also specifies that the fractional FTE must be set in 5 percent increments; it does not specify whether to round up or down to the nearest 5 percent. Prior to FY 2019-20, the Department rounded down, but starting in FY 2019-20, acting on the recommendation of a Supreme-court-appointed committee, it is rounding up. The committee believed it was matter of fairness since these part-time judicial officers were doing more work than they were being paid for, for example, a workload equivalent to 24% salary but only being paid for 20%. This request is the result of two changes: (1) caseload/workload growth which has added 0.75 FTE and (2) the switch to the new "round up" methodology, which added 0.55 FTE.

JUD BA4A CONTRACT ATTORNEY RATE INCREASE



The Judicial Department requests $253,659 General Fund for expenditures from its Court Costs, Jury Costs, and Court Appointed Counsel line item for a 5 percent rate increase for the contract attorneys who do work for the Judicial Department, which matches the 5 percent rate increase for contract attorneys requested by the Office of Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of Respondent Parent Counsel, and the Office of the Child’s Representative. This request is analyzed along with the requests from other agencies in the Office of Alternate Defense Counsel portion of this document.

CDAC R1 DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANDATED COSTS REQUEST: The Colorado District Attorney’s Council requests an increase for District Attorney Mandated Costs of $109,851 total funds, comprised of $79,851 General Fund and $30,000 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. BACKGROUND: The District Attorney Mandated Costs line item provides state funding to reimburse Colorado's district attorneys' offices (DAs) for costs incurred for prosecution of state matters, as required by state statute (e.g., expert witness fees and travel expenses, witness travel expenses, mailing subpoenas, service of process, and court reporter fees for transcripts). The Colorado District Attorneys' Council (CDAC) is responsible for allocating the available funding among DAs, and for submitting the budget request for this line item each year.

ANALYSIS: Based on FY 2018-19 expenditure data provided by the CDAC, DAs' mandated costs consist of the following: o Witness fees and travel expenses ($663,788 - 27.78%) o Expert witness fees and travel expenses ($655,663 – 27.44%) o Mailing subpoenas ($572,931 – 23.98%) o Service of process ($360,841 – 15.10%) o Court reporter fees for transcripts ($173,962 – 7.28%) The following table provides a history of appropriations and actual expenditures for this line item, as well as the request for FY 2020-21.



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' MANDATED COSTS

APPROPRIATION ACTUAL EXPENDITURES

OVER/

(UNDER) BUDGET

FISCAL

YEAR GENERAL

FUND CASH

FUNDS TOTAL GENERAL

FUND CASH

FUNDS TOTAL

ANNUAL

%

CHANGE 2000-01 $1,938,724 $0 $1,938,724 $1,889,687 $0 $1,889,687 ($49,037)

2001-02 1,938,724 0 1,938,724 1,978,963 0 1,978,963 4.7% 40,239

2002-03 2,025,199 125,000 2,150,199 1,833,410 71,117 1,904,527 -3.8% (245,672)

2003-04 2,025,199 125,000 2,150,199 1,847,369 59,334 1,906,703 0.1% (243,496)

2004-05 1,911,899 0 1,911,899 1,911,970 0 1,911,970 0.3% 71

2005-06 1,911,899 0 1,911,899 1,772,849 106,325 1,879,174 -1.7% (32,725)

2006-07 1,841,899 125,000 1,966,899 1,928,795 99,090 2,027,885 7.9% 60,986

2007-08 1,837,733 125,000 1,962,733 2,092,974 130,674 2,223,648 9.7% 260,915

2008-09 2,101,052 125,000 2,226,052 2,063,785 125,000 2,188,785 -1.6% (37,267)

2009-10 2,101,052 125,000 2,226,052 2,101,050 125,000 2,226,050 1.7% (2)

2010-11a 2,005,324 125,000 2,130,324 2,005,507 125,000 2,130,507 -4.3% 183

2011-12 2,073,494 125,000 2,198,494 2,061,883 125,000 2,186,883 2.6% (11,611)

2012-13b 2,389,549 140,000 2,529,549 2,164,497 140,000 2,304,497 5.4% (225,052)

2013-14c 2,491,916 160,000 2,651,916 2,152,067 160,000 2,312,067 0.3% (339,849)

2014-15d 2,527,153 170,000 2,697,153 2,374,178 160,865 2,535,043 9.6% (162,110)

2015-16e 2,322,350 170,000 2,492,350 2,177,581 170,000 2,347,581 -7.4% (144,769)

2016-17 2,247,350 170,000 2,417,350 2,131,396 170,000 2,301,396 -4.9% (115,954)

2017-18f 2,314,770 170,000 2,484,770 2,323,341 170,000 2,493,341 8.3% 8,571

2018-19 2,389,313 170,000 2,559,313 2,384,384 170,000 2,554,384 2.4% (4,929)

2019-20 2,491,686 170,000 2,661,686

2020-21 Request 2,571,537 200,000 2,771,537 a Appropriation reflects reduction of $17,300 pursuant to H.B. 10-1291. b The appropriation included $265,100 to reimburse costs in the Holmes and Sigg cases; a total of $111,993 was spent. c The appropriation included $353,500 specifically for the Holmes and Sigg cases; a total of $146,660 was spent. d The appropriation included $300,000 specifically for the Holmes case; a total of $303,820 was spent. e The appropriation included $75,000 specifically for the Holmes case; a total of $78,275 was spent. f The Judicial Department used its statutory transfer authority to cover the FY 2017-18 shortfall with a transfer from its own Court Costs, Jury Costs and Court Appointed Counsel line item appropriation.

Staff recommends the request.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – TRIAL COURTS

TRIAL COURT PROGRAMS This line item provides funding for personal services and operating expenses for judges, magistrates, court staff, and the Office of Dispute Resolution. Cash fund sources include the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund, various court fees and cost recoveries, grants, and the sale of jury pattern instructions. Reappropriated funds reflect federal funds transferred from the Departments of Public Safety and Human Services. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Article VI of the State Constitution [Vestment of judicial power]; Section 13-5-101 et seq., C.R.S [District courts]; Section 13-6-101 et seq., C.R.S. [County courts]



REQUEST: The Department requests $178,250,082, including $146,574,851 General Fund and 1,962.6 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request, as detailed in the following table.

TRIAL COURTS, TRIAL COURT PROGRAMS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $162,689,321 $131,488,759 $29,250,562 $1,950,000 $0 1,859.1

Other Legislation $4,739,158 $4,691,797 $47,361 $0 $0 49.4

TOTAL $167,428,479 $136,180,556 $29,297,923 $1,950,000 $0 1,908.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $167,428,479 $136,180,556 $29,297,923 $1,950,000 $0 1,908.5




JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 546,706 618,038 (71,332) 0 0 5.9


246,197 246,197 0 0 0 1.3


173,645 173,645 0 0 0 2.1

JUD R1 Judicial budget adjustments 0 (456,056) 456,056 0 0 0.0


TOTAL $178,250,082 $146,574,851 $29,725,231 $1,950,000 $0 1,962.6



FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $178,250,082 $146,574,851 $29,725,231 $1,950,000 $0 1,962.6


COURT COSTS, JURY COSTS, AND COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL This is currently the largest of several line item appropriations for mandated costs, and one of two that are administered by the State Court Administrator’s Office. Mandated costs are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION – MANDATED COSTS APPROPRIATIONS Prior to January of 2000, funding for mandated costs was appropriated through a single line item to the Judicial Department. A judge presiding over a case had the responsibility to approve expenditures of these state funds by the defense and the prosecution, and to give both sides a fair hearing when doing so. There was concern that this created an inherent conflict in which the judge, by his or her decision about expenditures, could compromise a case. An ad hoc committee on mandated costs established by Chief Justice Vollack issued a report recommending that the responsibility for managing these costs of prosecution and defense be



transferred to the entities responsible for incurring the costs. Thus, since FY 1999-0013, the General Assembly has provided multiple appropriations for mandated costs. Currently, the Long Bill includes six appropriations for mandated costs, including three to the Judicial Department, and individual appropriations to the Office of the State Public Defender, the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of the Child's Representative, and the Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Several provisions concerning court-appointed counsel, including: Titles 13 [Court procedures], 14 [Domestic relations],15 [Probate],19 [Children's Code], 22 [Education], 25 [Health], and 27 [Behavioral health]; Section 13-3-104, C.R.S. [State funding for courts]; Sections 13-71-125 through 13-71-131, C.R.S. [Juror compensation]; Section 16-18-101, C.R.S. [Costs in criminal cases paid by the State]; Section 18-1.3-701 (2), C.R.S. [Judgement for costs and fines] REQUEST: The Department requests a total of $9,061,535, including $8,896,286 General Fund and $165,249 cash funds from various fees, cost recoveries, and grants. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANDATED COSTS This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". This line item provides state funding to reimburse Colorado's district attorneys' offices (DAs) for costs incurred for prosecution of state matters, as required by state statute. Based on FY 2017-18 expenditure data provided by the CDAC, the DAs' mandated costs consist of the following:

o Witness fees and travel expenses ($671,506 – 29.01%) o Expert witness fees and travel expenses ($613,706 – 26.5%) o Mailing subpoenas14 ($519,927 – 22.5%) o Service of process15 ($361,110 – 15.6%) o Court reporter fees for transcripts ($201,200 – 8.7%)

Prior to FY 2000-01, funding for DAs’ mandated costs was included within the “Mandated Costs” line item appropriation to the Judicial Department and judges made decisions about their use in specific cases. In 1999, an ad hoc committee on mandated costs released a report recommending that responsibility for managing court costs be transferred to the entities that incur them. Thus, since FY 2000-01, the General Assembly has provided a separate appropriation for DAs’ mandated costs. This line item has been accompanied by a footnote or a request for information indicating that DAs in each judicial district are responsible for allocations made by an oversight committee

13 This budget format change was implemented through mid-year adjustments in H.B. 00-1403. 14 A subpoena is a writ by a government agency, most often a court, which has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. 15 Service of process is the general term for the legal document (usually a summons) by which a lawsuit is started and the court asserts its jurisdiction over the parties and the controversy.



(currently the CDAC). Any increases in the line item are to be requested and justified in writing by the CDAC, rather than the Judicial Department. The CDAC allocates funds among the 22 judicial districts (including those districts that are not members of the CDAC) based on historical spending. However, the CDAC excludes from this initial allocation: a portion of the appropriation to cover its costs of administering the allocation (5.0 percent of the appropriation); and another amount (typically $300,000) to cover any unanticipated district needs. District attorneys submit information quarterly concerning costs incurred, as well as projections of annual expenditures. The CDAC has a special process for requesting additional funds above the allocated amount. In order to limit state expenditures, the CDAC has limited expert witness fees to $1,500 per expert. Fees paid in excess of this limit are only reimbursed if funds remain available at the end of the fiscal year. In FY 2015-16, DAs' incurred $70,312 above this limit.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-104, C.R.S. [State funding for courts]; Section 16-18-101, C.R.S. [Costs in criminal cases paid by the State]; Section 18-1.3-701 (2), C.R.S. [Judgement for costs and fines]. REQUEST: The CDAC requests an appropriation of $2,771,537, including $2,571,537 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. For more information, see the narrative for CDAC R1, at the beginning of this division. BACKGROUND INFORMATION CDAC'S ROLE: Since FY 1999-00, the General Assembly has provided a separate appropriation for DAs’ mandated costs. This line item has been accompanied by a footnote or a request for information (e.g., RFI #3 in the 2018 RFI letter sent to the Chief Justice) indicating that DAs in each judicial district are responsible for allocations made by an oversight committee (currently the CDAC). Any increases in the line item are to be requested and justified in writing by the CDAC, rather than the Judicial Department. Two statutory provisions appear to provide statutory authority for the CDAC to play this role. First, Section 20-1-110, C.R.S., authorizes a DA to participate in an intergovernmental cooperative relationship concerning criminal prosecution and to enter into contracts on behalf of his or her judicial district for cooperation with other DAs concerning such prosecution and prosecution-related services. Second, Section 20-1-111, C.R.S., authorizes DAs to cooperate or contract with one another to provide any function or service lawfully authorized to each of the cooperating or contracting DAs, "including the sharing of costs and the administration and distribution of moneys received for mandated costs." This provision also authorizes DAs to "allocate up to five percent of the moneys received for mandated costs authorized by the general assembly for administrative expenses." Consistent with this provision, the CDAC annually receives 5.0 percent of the appropriation ($127,965 in FY 2018-19) to cover the administrative costs associated with allocating and managing this appropriation. The Judicial Department (not the CDAC) actually pays out the reimbursements to DAs and makes the related accounting entries in the state accounting system. Individual DAs make payments related to any mandated costs, and submit a list of such payments to the local district court administrator each month in order to receive reimbursement.



ACTION AND STATEWIDE DISCOVERY SHARING SYSTEMS This line item provides funding for both the eDiscovery and ACTION systems. Fund sources include General Fund and cash fund revenues from a new criminal surcharge for persons who are represented by private counsel or appear without legal representation. Senate Bill 14-190 (a JBC bill) required the Colorado District Attorneys' Council (CDAC) to develop and maintain a statewide system that would enable the sharing and transfer of information electronically between law enforcement agencies, district attorneys' offices, and the defense. This statewide discovery sharing system (often called the "eDiscovery" system) was integrated with CDAC's preexisting ACTION case management system, which is used by district attorneys. eDiscovery has now been fully implemented in the majority of districts. There are two districts that have chosen to use their own methods but are currently planning to convert to the eDiscovery system. Once eDiscovery was fully implemented, district attorneys could no longer charge the defense for duplicating discoverable materials. The entire DA community stopped charging for discovery on June 30, 2017. This allowed existing General Fund appropriations for such reimbursements to be repurposed to support the ongoing operations of the eDiscovery and ACTION systems. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 16-9-701 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The Judicial Department, on behalf of the CDAC, requests $3,240,000 (including $3,170,000 General Fund and $70,000 cash funds from the Statewide Discovery Sharing Surcharge Fund). This line item is impacted by CDAC R2 eDiscovery and annualization of S.B. 14-190, which is discussed at the beginning of this packet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER GRANTS This line item reflects miscellaneous grants and federal funds associated with the trial courts. The FTE shown in the Long Bill are not permanent employees of the Department, but instead represent the Department's estimates of the full-time equivalent employees who are working under the various grants. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-3-101 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of spending authority ($2,900,000 and 13.0 FTE), including $975,000 cash funds, $300,000 reappropriated funds, and $1,625,000 federal funds. The source of reappropriated funds is federal funds transferred from the Departments of Human Services and Public Safety. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. The FTE that are shown with this line item are actually contract staff (in some cases these may be long-term contracts), and are not reflected as FTE within the Department's payroll system. For purposes of providing actual FTE data, the Department uses its payroll system to determine the number of hours worked by these contract staff and calculate an equivalent number of FTE.



(4) PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES This section provides funding for probation officers and staff, as well as services that are provided to offenders on probation or related to the probation function. Cash fund sources include: the Offender Services Fund, the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund, the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund, the Sex Offender Surcharge Fund, the Offender Identification Fund, and various fees, cost recoveries, and grants. Sources of reappropriated funds include transfers from the Education, Human Services, and Public Safety Departments. Persons convicted of certain offenses are eligible to apply to the court for probation. If the court determines that "the ends of justice and the best interests of the public, as well as the defendant, will be served thereby," the court may grant the defendant probation16. The offender serves a sentence in the community under the supervision of a probation officer, subject to conditions imposed by the court. The length of probation is at the discretion of the court and it may exceed the maximum period of incarceration authorized for the offense of which the defendant is convicted, but it cannot exceed five years for any misdemeanor or petty offense. The conditions of probation should ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life and assist the defendant in doing so. These conditions always include requirements that the defendant:

will not commit another offense;

will make full restitution;

will comply with any court orders regarding substance abuse testing and treatment and/or the treatment of sex offenders; and

will not harass, molest, intimidate, retaliate against, or tamper with the victim. Managed by the Chief Probation Officer in each judicial district, 1,185 employees prepare assessments and provide pre-sentence investigation services to the courts, supervise offenders sentenced to community programs, and provide notification and support services to victims. The Chief Probation Officer is supervised by the Chief Judge in each district. Investigation and supervision services are provided based on priorities established by the Chief Justice and each offender's risk of re-offending. Adult and juvenile offenders are supervised in accordance with conditions imposed by the courts. A breach of any imposed condition may result in revocation or modification of probation, or incarceration of the offender. The following table summarizes the staff recommendations for the Probation and Related Services.

PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $163,776,426 $99,782,140 $28,443,489 $32,750,797 $2,800,000 1,297.2


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $163,968,163 $99,973,877 $28,443,489 $32,750,797 $2,800,000 1,298.8



16 See Section 18-1.3-202 (1), C.R.S.



PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE



550,102 0 460,000 90,102 0 0.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments (736,529) (46,631) 0 (689,898) 0 (10.0)


(68,598) (68,598) 0 0 0 (0.8)

JUD R16A Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures

181,941 0 0 181,941 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation 999,914 946,874 53,040 0 0 8.8



Indirect Cost Adjustment 228,671 0 228,671 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $170,849,089 $105,817,675 $29,822,559 $32,408,855 $2,800,000 1,325.2

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $6,880,926 $5,843,798 $1,379,070 ($341,942) $0 26.4

Percentage Change 4.2% 5.8% 4.8% (1.0%) 0.0% 2.0%



($620,908) ($232,416) ($458,309) $69,817 $0 (0.0)

DECISION ITEMS – PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES

JUD R3 – ADDITIONAL PROBATION OFFICERS REQUEST: The Judicial Department requests $2,451,736 General Fund for 8.0 FTE new magistrates and 16.0 FTE support staff. The request adds judicial officers in the eight counties with the most critical need for county court judicial officers as shown in the following table. All of these counties are less than 85 percent fully staffed, based on the Department's court staffing model: In the second year, the cost is $2,119,675 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend this increase. ANALYSIS:

JUD R16A CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND EXPENDITURES - and - APPROVAL OF THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT BOARD FUNDING PLAN

REQUEST: The Correctional Treatment Board requests approval of its Funding Plan and the appropriations to the Departments of Corrections, Human Services, Public Safety and the Judicial Branch that are supported by that Funding Plan. The Board also requests that the related appropriation in the Judicial Department portion of the Long Bill for Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures be increased $181,941, which accords with the funding plan.



RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. BRIEF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Correctional Treatment Cash Fund (CTCF) funds the treatment of substance abuse and co-occurring disorders in adult and juvenile offenders. The moneys are expended by the Departments of Corrections, Human Services, and Public Safety, as well as by the Judicial Branch. The Correctional Treatment Board decides how to allocate the funds and the Board's allocation must be approved by the General Assembly. SOURCES OF REVENUE: Revenues of the CTCF derive from annual General Fund and Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF) appropriations to the CTCF, from a surcharge paid by convicted drug offenders, and from interest earned on the fund balance. Appropriations from the CTCF are classified as reappropriated funds if they the trace to GF and MTCF appropriations to the fund that are spent in the year received, while other expenditures are classified as cash funds. PROVIDER RATE INCREASE. During 2017 figure setting, the Committee decided that the appropriations to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund from the General Fund and from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund should be increased in step with the common policy community provider rate increase because the CTCF is used to pay providers. The decision affected FY 2017-18 and subsequent years in which there is a provider rate increase. This means that the appropriation into the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund is now adjusted automatically each year by the amount of the provider rate increase. The adjustment is an annualization of a prior budget action which applied the provider rate increase to this appropriation for FY 2017-18 and subsequent years. The decision to increase CTCF contributions in step with the provider rate increase adds a wiggle to the CTCF budgeting process. The Correctional Treatment Board establishes its “funding plan” in the fall and submits the plan to the JBC on November 1st as part of the Judicial Branch’s budget request. When the Correctional Treatment Board is formulating this plan (which is basically a spending plan) at its September and October meetings, it sometimes knows the provider rate increase percentage that the Governor will propose, and sometimes does not. In some years it doesn’t even know for sure that there will be a provider rate increase. Once the session starts, the JBC often sets a percentage that differs from the Governor’s request. The final percentage may not be known until shortly before the Long Bill is closed. Dealing with this uncertainty poses challenges; in Feb. 2018, the Correctional Treatment Board convened on short notice to adjust the plan it had approved the preceding fall. Staff believes that the best way to deal with this situation is automatically adjust the appropriation into the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund in accord with the provider rate increase and not try, late in the figure setting process, to adjust spending from the CTCF to somehow take extra revenue into account. Appropriations into and out of the CTCF do not need to match. In fact the Board is spending more from the Fund each year than the Fund receives in revenue; it is simply spending from accumulated fund balance. The following table computes the amount that will be appropriated into the CTCF in the Long Bill, based on a 1.9 percent provider rate increase and compares it with the appropriation that would have occurred with the Governor’s 0.5 percent increase.



APPROPRIATION TO THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND BASED ON 0.5% AND 1.9%

PROVIDER RATE INCREASES

FY 2019-20

APPROPRIATION INCREASE

FY 2020-21

APPROPRIATION From the General Fund

Request (based on Governor’s 0.5% provider rate increase)

$15,722,879 $78,614 $15,801,493

Recommendation (1.9% JBC approved provider rate increase) 298,735 16,021,614

From the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund

Request (0.5% Governor’s requested provider rate increase) 1,603,319

8,017 1,611,336

Recommendation (1.9% JBC approved provider rate increase) 30,463 1,633,782

ANALYSIS: The resulting General Fund appropriation to the CTCF is consistent with current law, which requires the General Assembly to appropriate at least $15,200,000 General Fund annually to the CTCF. The appropriation requested from the MTCF increases funding by 1.5 percent. This amount is transferred to the Department of Human Services for the Jail-based Behavioral Health Services Program. This MTCF funding was originally authorized through S.B. 14-215. REQUESTED CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND EXPENDITURES (I.E. APPROPRIATIONS FROM

THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND): In November the Correctional Treatment Board submitted its annual funding plan, which proposes expenditures from the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund for FY 2020-21. The plan is based program need, projected revenue of the fund, and available fund balance.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT BOARD FY 2020-21 FUNDING PLAN

FY 2019-20

APPROPRIATION FY 2020-21

PLAN CHANGE FROM

FY 2019-20 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Drug & Alcohol Treatment Subprogram 1,388,373 1,388,373 0

Parole Subprogram 2,163,125 2,163,125 0 Community Supervision Subprogram 230,000 230,000

TOTAL DOC 3,551,498 3,781,498 230,000

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Use Treatment and Prevention

Offender Services 1,520,377 1,520,377 0

Integrated Behavioral Health Services

Jail-Based Behavioral Health 7,176,846 7,176,846 0

Community Based Circle Program 2,000,000 2,000,000 0

TOTAL DHS 10,697,223 10,697,223 0

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

DCJ Administration

Personal Services/Operating/POTS 96,297 106,376 10,079

Community Corrections

Community Corrections Placements 2,707,740 2,844,127 136,387

Treatment. for substance abuse and co-occurring disorders 2,615,598 2,615,598 0

TOTAL DPS 5,419,635 5,566,101 146,466

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Probation & Related Services

Offender Treatment & Services 2,896,891 2,896,891 0

Adult Pre-Trial Diversion 169,000 169,000 0

TOTAL JUDICIAL 3,065,891 3,065,891 0

Non-Agency Specific



CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT BOARD FY 2020-21 FUNDING PLAN

FY 2019-20

APPROPRIATION FY 2020-21

PLAN CHANGE FROM

FY 2019-20 CTCF Board Administration

CTCF Board Overhead 193,890 193,890 0

Local Board Funding requests 591,088 1,206,471 615,383

CCJC 368,300 368,300 0

Indirects 168,232 168,232 0

CTCF Board Administration

Personal Services/POTS 97,192 103,063 5,871

TOTAL JUDICIAL 1,418,702 2,039,956 621,254

Grand Total 24,152,949 25,150,669 997,720

The Board's plan includes salaries and benefits for two FTE who handle CTCF administrative matters and are supported by the fund. One is in the Department of Public Safety and the other is in the Judicial Department. The plan proposes that appropriations for these FTE be adjusted to reflect the current salaries and benefits of these individuals as well as related common policy POTS for next year. The plan further proposes that the indirect cost assessment be set in accord with the Judicial Department indirect cost plan. Note that the indirect cost assessment is collected only from revenues of the CTCF that come from the Drug Offender Surcharge, a fee that varies from $200 for a deferred sentence to $4,500 for a class 2 felony or level 1 drug conviction. The indirect cost assessment is not paid on CTCF monies that trace to the General Fund or the MTCF. Note that spending from the CTCF exceeds the appropriation; the CTCF has a fund balance of approximately $5.8 million that it is spending down at the rate of approximately $2 million per year. Most spending from the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund is appropriated twice in the Long Bill, first as an appropriation on the line item titled Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures. Almost all this appropriation is then transferred to line items elsewhere that correspond with the allocations listed in the preceding Correctional Treatment Board Funding Plan where it is again appropriated. RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS RELATED TO THE FUNDING PLAN: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the funding plan presented in the preceding table and include the following corresponding appropriations in the Long Bill:

(1) An appropriation of $25,150,669 of cash and reappropriated funds from the CTCF on the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures line item in the Probation Division of the Judicial Department, which corresponds to the total shown in the funding plan. Staff requests permission to compute the cash-reappropriated fund split for this appropriation, should that be required.

(2) Reappropriations that appear in each of the Departments listed in the Funding Plan, in the listed amounts, on line items indicated in the descriptions. Staff will inform other analysts of these appropriations.

RECOMMENDED FOOTNOTE: Staff recommends that the following footnote, which corresponds to the amounts in the preceding table, be attached to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures item in the Long Bill. A similar footnote appeared in last year’s Long Bill. 56 Judicial Department, Probation and Related Services, Correctional Treatment Cash Fund

Expenditures -- This appropriation includes the following transfers: $3,781,498 to the Department of Corrections, $10,697,223 to the Department of Human Services, $5,566,101



to the Department of Public Safety, $2,896,891 to the Offender Treatment and Services line item in the Probation Division, and $169,000 to the District Attorney Adult Pretrial Diversion Programs line in the Centrally Administered Program Section of the Courts Administration Division.

. COMMENT: It is challenging to follow the flow of Correctional Treatment Cash Funds in the Long Bill and this footnote makes it easier to do so. Staff requests permission to adjust the footnote to reflect subsequent Committee decisions.

DETAILED CTCF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Funding for Substance Abuse Treatment for Offenders Over the past decade, the General Assembly has changed the categorization and sanctions related to the use and possession of controlled substances. To the extent that these changes reduce the number of offenders who are incarcerated, or the length of time that offenders are incarcerated, these statutory changes have reduced state expenditures. The General Assembly has reinvested the estimated General Fund savings to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment for offenders. Through H.B. 12-1310, the General Assembly consolidated the major sources of state funding for offender substance abuse treatment, and consolidated the associated oversight boards into a single Correctional Treatment Board. Specifically, H.B. 12-1310 continued to require the General Assembly to annually appropriate a minimum amount of General Fund related to the estimated savings that resulted from the enactment of S.B. 03-318 ($2.2 million) and H.B. 10-1352 ($9.5 million). These amounts are to be credited to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund (CTCF). For FY 2013-14, the General Assembly was required to appropriate at least $11.7 million General Fund to the CTCF. Pursuant to S.B. 13-250, the General Assembly is required to appropriate an additional $3.5 million General Fund related to the estimated savings from S.B. 13-250. Thus, the General Assembly is required to appropriate at least $15.2 million General Fund annually to the CTCF17. In addition, the budget now includes an appropriation from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund (MTCF) to the CTCF pursuant to S.B. 14-215 and H.B. 15-1367 as adjusted for provider rate increase. These funds are transferred to the Department of Human Services to support jail-based behavioral health services. The Judicial Branch budget thus includes a General Fund appropriation to the CTCF, along with a corresponding amount of spending authority from the CTCF to allow the Department to use these moneys to provide treatment services to offenders on probation, and to transfer a portion of the moneys to other state agencies for the provision of services to offenders in other settings. Moneys transferred to other state agencies are reflected a third time in the other three agencies' budgets (as reappropriated funds). While this structure is transparent and allows one to easily identify the total amount of funding devoted to offender substance abuse treatment, it does overstate annual funding increases within the Judicial Branch and the state as a whole if one does not exclude reappropriated amounts. Thus the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund consists of

17 See Sections 18-19-103 (3.5)(b) and (c) and (4)(a), C.R.S.



Annual appropriations from the General Fund to the CTCF,

Annual appropriations from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund to the CTCF,

Drug offender surcharge revenues of the CTCF, and

Interest income of the CTCF. Moneys from the CTCF may be used for the following purposes:

Alcohol and drug screening, assessment, and evaluation;

Alcohol and drug testing;

Substance abuse education and training;

An annual statewide conference regarding substance abuse treatment;

Treatment for assessed substance abuse and co-occurring disorders;

Recovery support services; and

Administrative support to the Correctional Treatment Board. Money from the CTCF may be used to serve adults and juveniles who are:

Abiding by a diversion contract in lieu of a sentence;

Serving a probation sentence (including Denver county);

On parole;

Sentenced or transitioned to a community corrections program; or

Serving a sentence in a county jail, on a work-release program supervised by the county jail, or receiving after-care treatment following release from jail if the offender participated in a jail treatment program.

The Correctional Treatment Board is charged with assessing the availability and effectiveness of adult and juvenile offender substance abuse services statewide. The Board is required to prepare an annual treatment funding plan that the Judicial Department includes in its annual budget request. This plan is included as an appendix to the JBC Staff Budget Briefing for the Judicial Branch. In February, 2018 the Board submitted an amended Treatment Funding Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19 that is presented above. Correctional Treatment Board The Correctional Treatment Board consists of the seven members representing:

The Department of Corrections,

The Division of Probation in the Judicial Branch,

The Office of the State Public Defender,

The Department of Public Safety,

The Department of Human Services,

District attorneys, and

County sheriffs18. The Board’s responsibilities include:

Working with local drug treatment boards to identify judicial district-specific treatment and programmatic needs;

18 See Section 18-19-103 (5) (b), C.R.S.



Reviewing existing treatment services and their effectiveness;

Identifying funding and programmatic barriers to effective treatment; and

Developing a comprehensive annual funding plan that meets the identified statewide needs and effectively treats substance abuse offenders in Colorado.

Allocations from the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Currently, CTCF moneys are allocated among four state agencies.

The Judicial Branch uses funds to provide substance use testing, and mental health and substance use treatment for offenders on probation and those participating in problem-solving courts. In addition, funding is used to support adult pre-trial diversion programs administered by district attorneys' offices. The Judicial Department also uses funds to support 1.0 FTE that supports the Correction Treatment Board.

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) allocates funds to local community corrections boards for intensive residential treatment (IRT), therapeutic community programs, and outpatient treatment vouchers. The DPS also uses funds to support 1.0 FTE in the Division of Criminal Justice responsible for research and training related to substance abuse and risk/need assessments.

The Department of Human Services uses these funds for three purposes. First, the Department allocates funds to county sheriffs for the jail-based behavioral health services (JBBS) program. These programs screen for and provide care for adult inmates with a substance use disorder – both while in jail and following the inmate's release from jail. Second, funds are allocated to managed service organizations (MSOs) so support community-based outpatient substance abuse treatment services. Third, funds are used to support the Short-term Intensive Residential Remediation Treatment (STIRRT) program, which serves adult offenders who have been unsuccessful in community treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and continue to commit offenses.

The Department of Corrections uses funds to support case management, substance use testing, and outpatient treatment for parole clients.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES

PROBATION PROGRAMS This line item provides funding for both personal services and operating expenses for probation programs in all judicial districts. Cash funds sources include: the Offender Services Fund, the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund, the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund (drug offender surcharge fee revenues), various fees and cost recoveries, and the Offender Identification Fund. The following table details the types of employees that are supported by this line item. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 16-11-214 [Offender Services Fund]; 18-1.3-201 et seq., C.R.S. [Probation as a sentencing option]; Section 24-33.5-415.6 (1), C.R.S. [Offender ID Fund]; 42-4-1301.3, C.R.S. [Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety (ADDS) Program] REQUEST: The Department requests $99,041,398, including $88,901,129 General Fund and $10,140,269 cash funds, and 1,271.2 FTE.



RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES, PROBATION PROGRAMS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $92,895,906 $83,134,384 $9,761,522 $0 $0 1,233.2


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $93,087,643 $83,326,121 $9,761,522 $0 $0 1,234.8


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $93,087,643 $83,326,121 $9,761,522 $0 $0 1,234.8



Annualize prior legislation 999,914 946,874 53,040 0 0 8.8


(68,598) (68,598) 0 0 0 (0.8)

TOTAL $99,041,398 $88,901,129 $10,140,269 $0 $0 1,271.2



FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $99,041,398 $88,901,129 $10,140,269 $0 $0 1,271.2


OFFENDER TREATMENT AND SERVICES This line item provides funding for the purchase of treatment and services for offenders on probation, as well as funding that is transferred to other state agencies to provide treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring disorders for adult and juvenile offenders who are: on diversion; on parole; sentenced or transitioned to a community corrections program; or serving a sentence in a county jail. The portion of funding that is spent by the Judicial Department for offenders on probation is generally allocated among judicial districts based on each district's relative share of FTE and probationers under supervision. Each probation department then develops a local budget to provide treatment and services, including the following:

Substance abuse treatment and testing;

Sex offender assessment, treatment, and polygraphs;

Domestic violence treatment;

Mental health services;

Electronic home monitoring;

Emergency housing;

Transportation assistance;



Day reporting19;

Educational/vocational assistance;

Global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking;

Incentives;

General medical assistance;

Restorative justice; and

Interpreter services. The local allocation of funds depends on the availability of treatment and services and the particular needs of the local offender population. The Department annually reports on allocations and expenditures, by treatment and type of services. The Department is also using some existing funding for state-level initiatives, including researching evidence-based practices and building capacity in rural/under-served parts of the state. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 16-11-214 [Offender Services Fund]; Section 18-1.3-201 et seq., C.R.S. [Probation as a sentencing option]; Section 18-19-103, C.R.S. [Drug offender surcharge]; Section 18-21-103, C.R.S. [Sex offender surcharge] REQUEST: The following table summarizes the request and the recommendation:

PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES, OFFENDER TREATMENT AND SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $18,959,393 $924,877 $14,249,284 $3,785,232 $0 0.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $18,959,393 $924,877 $14,249,284 $3,785,232 $0 0.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $18,959,393 $924,877 $14,249,284 $3,785,232 $0 0.0


550,102 0 460,000 90,102 0 0.0


JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments 163,471 (46,631) 0 210,102 0 0.0

TOTAL $20,046,754 $894,932 $14,990,473 $4,161,349 $0 0.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $1,087,361 ($29,945) $741,189 $376,117 $0 0.0

Percentage Change 5.7% (3.2%) 5.2% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $19,771,331 $882,637 $14,783,281 $4,105,413 $0 0.0

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation ($275,423) ($12,295) ($207,192) ($55,936) $0 0.0

Staff also recommends continuing to appropriate $25,000 reappropriated funds to the Department of Corrections to allow it to receive and spend $25,000 from the Judicial Department's Offender Treatment and Services line item for the provision of day reporting services to parolees.

19 Day reporting centers provide intensive, individualized support and treatment services (e.g., employment assistance, substance abuse monitoring, and substance abuse treatment) for offenders who are at risk of violating terms of community placement.



Finally, at the end of this packet, staff has recommended continuation of the Long Bill footnote that expresses the General Assembly's intent that $624,877 of the appropriation be used to provide treatment and services for offenders in veterans treatment courts.

APPROPRIATION TO THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND This line item provides an annual appropriation from the General Fund and the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund to be credited to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund (CTCF). Money in the CTCF is used to fund the treatment of substance abuse or co-occurring disorders of adult and juvenile offenders. The Offender Treatment and Services line item in this budget provides the Judicial Department with a corresponding appropriation (from reappropriated funds) to spend a portion of this money for the provision of services to offenders on probation, and to transfer the remainder of these moneys to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services, and the Department of Public Safety to provide services to offenders in other settings. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 19-19-103 (3.5) (b) and (c) and (4) (a), C.R.S. The following table summarizes the request and recommendation for appropriations to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund

PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES, APPROPRIATION TO THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $17,326,198 $15,722,879 $1,603,319 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $17,326,198 $15,722,879 $1,603,319 $0 $0 0.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $17,326,198 $15,722,879 $1,603,319 $0 $0 0.0

Community Provider Rate 329,198 298,735 30,463 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $17,655,396 $16,021,614 $1,633,782 $0 $0 0.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $329,198 $298,735 $30,463 $0 $0 0.0



Request Above/(Below) Recommendation ($242,567) ($220,121) ($22,446) $0 $0 0.0

S.B. 91-094 JUVENILE SERVICES The General Assembly annually appropriates General Fund moneys to the Department of Human Services’ Division of Youth Services (DYS) for the provision of service alternatives to placing juveniles in the physical custody of the DYS. Generally, the types of services provided include individual and family therapy, substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, education, vocational and life skills training, mentoring, electronic monitoring, community service programs, gang intervention, mediation services, and anger management classes.



The DYS annually contracts with the Judicial Department to provide some of these services, and this line item authorizes the Judicial Department to receive and spend these moneys. The total amount of S.B. 91-094 funding that the Judicial Department receives depends on a number of factors including: the number of available treatment providers, the structural organization of the districts’ programs, and the level and types of treatment services required per district each year. When the amount of funding need is determined, each district submits its request directly to DHS. Once all district requests have been received, the Judicial Department and DYS execute the annual contract. The FTE that are shown with this line item are actually contract staff (in some cases these may be long-term contracts), and are not reflected as FTE within the Department's payroll system. For purposes of providing actual FTE data, the Department uses its payroll system to determine the number of hours worked by these contract staff and calculate an equivalent number of FTE. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 19-2-310, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a reappropriation of $1,596,837 and 15.0 FTE, a reduction of $900,000 and 10.0 FTE. The reduction is designed to eliminate reversions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request. Staff further recommends that this appropriation be placed after the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures line item, which currently follows this line item. This will group the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund line items together.

PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICES, S.B. 91-94 JUVENILE SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $2,496,837 $0 $0 $2,496,837 $0 25.0

TOTAL $2,496,837 $0 $0 $2,496,837 $0 25.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $2,496,837 $0 $0 $2,496,837 $0 25.0

JUD R16 BA9 Technical adjustments (900,000) 0 0 (900,000) 0 (10.0)

TOTAL $1,596,837 $0 $0 $1,596,837 $0 15.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($900,000) $0 $0 ($900,000) $0 (10.0)

Percentage Change (36.0%) 0.0% 0.0% (36.0%) 0.0% (40.0%)

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $1,596,837 $0 $0 $1,596,837 $0 15.0


CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CASH FUND EXPENDITURES STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 18-19-103, C.R.S.



REQUEST: The Department requests a reappropriation of $25,276,422 and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

REIMBURSEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FOR THE COSTS OF RETURNING

A PROBATIONER This line item provides funding for the Judicial Department to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the costs of returning a probationer to Colorado. The source of funding is the Interstate Compact Probation Transfer Cash Fund, a new fund that consists of revenue from a new $100 filing fee paid by an estimated 2,500 offenders who apply for out-of-state probation supervision (it is assumed that approximately 25 percent of these offenders will be indigent and have their fee waived). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 18-1.3-204 (4) (b), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of funding ($187,500 cash funds). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

VICTIMS GRANTS These grants are used to provide program development, training, grant management, and technical assistance to probation departments in each judicial district as they continue to improve their victim services programs and provide direct services and notification to victims of crime. The source of funding is victim assistance surcharges collected from offenders and administered by the State Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board, grants from local VALE boards, and a federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grant that are received by the Division of Criminal Justice and transferred to the Judicial Department. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 24-4.2-105 (2.5), C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of spending authority ($650,000 reappropriated funds and 6.0 FTE). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER GRANTS This line item reflects miscellaneous grants and federal funds associated with probation programs and services. The FTE shown in the Long Bill are not permanent employees of the Department, but represent the Department's estimates of the full-time equivalent employees who are working under the various grants (often in judicial districts). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 18-1.3-202, C.R.S.



REQUEST: The Department requests a continuation level of spending authority ($5,600,000 and 32.0 FTE), including $1,950,000 cash funds, $850,000 reappropriated funds (funds transferred from other state agencies), and $2,800,000 federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

INDIRECT COST ASSESSMENT Indirect cost assessments are charged to cash and federally-funded programs for departmental and statewide overhead costs, and then the assessments are used in the Courts Administration section to offset General Fund appropriations. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Colorado Fiscal Rules #8-3; Section 24-75-1401, C.R.S. [Indirect Costs Excess Recovery Fund] REQUEST: Department requests $691,864 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $920,535 cash funds, which is consistent with Committee policy.



(5) OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER The federal20 and state21 constitutions provide that an accused person has the right to be represented by counsel in criminal prosecutions. This constitutional right has been interpreted to mean that counsel will be provided at state expense for indigent persons in all cases in which incarceration is a likely penalty. The Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) is established by Section 21-1-101, et seq., C.R.S., as an independent agency within the Judicial Branch for the purpose of providing legal representation for indigent defendants who are facing incarceration. This provision requires the OSPD to provide legal representation to indigent defendants "commensurate with those available to non-indigents, and conduct the office in accordance with the Colorado rules of professional conduct and with the American bar association standards relating to the administration of criminal justice, the defense function." The OSPD provides representation through employees located around the state. The OSPD is governed by the five-member Public Defender Commission, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Commission appoints an individual to serve as the State Public Defender. The State Public Defender's compensation is fixed by the General Assembly (through a Long Bill footnote) and may not be reduced during his or her five-year term of appointment. The State Public Defender employs and fixes the compensation for deputy public defenders, investigators, and other necessary support staff. However, all salaries are to be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Supreme Court. The OSPD is the largest independent agency within the Judicial Branch. The OSPD’s central administrative office is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, and the associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides a limited amount of administrative support, including: fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; and a server room. With the exception of a small amount of cash funds from training registration fees and grants, the OSPD is supported by General Fund appropriations.

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $105,995,438 $105,940,438 $55,000 $0 $0 875.1

Other Legislation 1,396,977 1,396,977 0 0 0 14.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $107,392,415 $107,337,415 $55,000 $0 $0 889.1




OSPD R2 IT 754,745 754,745 0 0 0 2.7


OSPD R4 Mandated costs 431,712 431,712 0 0 0 0.0

20 See Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution (Rights of accused). 21 See Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution (Criminal prosecutions - rights of defendant).




TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

OSPD R5 Leases 357,103 357,103 0 0 0 0.0


Centrally appropriated line items 2,623,548 2,623,548 0 0 0 0.0


Non-prioritized requests (25,863) (25,863) 0 0 0 0.0


TOTAL $118,349,028 $118,294,028 $55,000 $0 $0 962.7





($833,477) ($833,477) $0 $0 $0 (0.0)

DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER

OSPD R1 OSPD STAFFING NEEDS REQUEST: The OSPD requests 54.7 FTE and $5,482, 908, General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualized to 59.6 FTE and $5,467,628 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address staffing and funding requirements necessary to comply with constitutional, statutory and obligations for indigent defense. When fully staffed, the request includes 36.0 Deputy State Public Defenders, 12.0 Investigators, 9.0 Administrative Assistants and 2.6 Central Office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Section 21-1-101, C.R.S. requires the Office of the State Public Defender to “provide legal services to indigent persons accused of crime that are commensurate with those available to non-indigents, and conduct the office in accordance with the Colorado rules of Professional Conduct and with the American Bar Association standards relating to the administration of criminal justice, the defense function.” [Emphasis added.] In FY 2011-12 the OSPD was staffed with 378 trial attorney FTE. That year it closed 93,692 cases and, based on a staffing model developed by an external contractor, it concluded that it had 97.6 percent of the attorneys it needed to handle its caseload. However, since that time the OSPD’s has fallen increasingly farther behind. The top line of the following chart shows the shows the growth of actual OSPD caseload since FY 2011-12 and predicts current and future caseload for the years beginning in FY 2019-20. Caseload is not the same as workload because some types of cases take more time than others; for example, the average felony takes the OSPD 228 percent more time than the average misdemeanor. The middle line in the chart shows the number of attorney FTE the Office would have needed to maintain 100 percent staffing up until FY 2019-20 and the amount it projects it will need for 100 percent staffing in the future. The bottom line shows the Office's actual attorney FTE's. The split to the right of the



bottom line shows the attorney FTEs that the Office will have if it does not receive this requested FTE increase and the FTE that it will have if this request is approved.

The next chart shows the OSPD’s declining staffing percentage over this period, based on the OSPD’s staffing model. As staff has pointed out in the past, it is possible to “reverse engineer” this type of staffing model and determine that the estimated 80% staffing rate for FY 2019-20 means the average OSPD trial attorneys is now working 47.1 hours in weeks in which without holidays or leave. Comparing this with the staffing percentage for county court judges computed earlier for request JUD R2 (Magistrates), shows that county court judicial officers are on average working a little more than an hour longer per week -- 48.4 hours in weeks without holidays or leave. If this request is not approved and the OSPD staffing percentage declines, as projected, to slightly less than 75 percent in FY 2022-23, average weekly trial-attorney hours will rise to 49.4. If this request is approved, the OSPD staffing percentage will rise to 84.5 percent in FY 2020-21, and average weekly hours will decline to 45.2.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Att

orn

ey F

TE

Cas

es (

≠ W

ork

load

)

OSPD Trial Caseload and Trial Attorney FTEs

Actual and projected

caseload (left axis)

Actual and projected

FTE for 100%

staffing (right axis)

Actual FTE (right

axis)

FTE if request is

approved (right axis)

FTE if request is not

approved (right axis)

FTE Shortfall

ForecastActual

12-Mar-2019 100 JUD-fig


The following chart shows the growth and changing composition of the OSPD's caseload. Note that this chart shows the number of active cases in a given year, which differs from the number of closed cases used in the preceding chart.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Att

orn

ey s

taff

ing %

OSPD Trial Attorney FTEs and staffing %

Actual attorney

staffing % (left axis)

Projected attorney

staffing % if request

is approved (left axis)

Projected attorney

staffing % if request

is not approved (left

axis)Actual Forecast

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19

Office of the State Public Defender Active Cases: FY 2009-10 through FY 2018-19

Juvenile

Adult Misdemeanor

Adult Felony

12-Mar-2019 101 JUD-fig


The surge in misdemeanor cases beginning in FY 2013-14 is due to the U.S. Supreme Court's Rothgery22 decision, which mandated the appointment of counsel at an earlier point in misdemeanor cases. Staff has reviewed the OSPD's forecasting method and believes that it produces conservative caseload predictions that are more likely to under predict growth than to over predict. The following caseload filing data from the Judicial Branch shows the number of felony cases that have been filed each month over the last decade, ending in October 2019.23 Remember that the OSPD only represents indigent defendants, so it will not represent all of these individuals. Over this period felony filings have been rising by an average of 12.5 per month. While it looks like filings may have leveled off in the past few months, there is a tendency for filings to peak in late summer and decline during the fall, to the apparent reduction in the rate of increase may reflect nothing other than the time of year.

22 Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008). 23 Prosecutors frequently file multiple charges against an individual that reflect differing aspects of the same criminal act. When this occurs, or when multiple criminal acts are charged in the same filing only the most serious charge is counted. If the charges against an individual are subsequently amended, only the initial charge is counted. In addition the misdemeanor data does not reflect filing in Denver county court, which operates separately from other county courts and is funded by Denver.

49% 48% 47% 48% 45% 41% 42% 44% 46% 47%

42% 44% 45% 45% 49% 52% 51% 49% 48% 47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19

Office of the State Public Defender Active Cases: FY 2009-10 through FY 2018-19

Juvenile

Adult Misdemeanor

Adult Felony

12-Mar-2019 102 JUD-fig


Attrition The next chart shows the attrition rate for OSPD attorneys over the last 14 years. The FY2019-20 attrition rate is a projection, based on year-to-date departures.

When interpreting this chart, remember that when the economic downturn began in 2008, there were fewer attorney jobs available elsewhere, which reduced attrition. In FY 2010-11, the Office received an additional 36.8 attorney FTE specifically to address workload, which appears to have helped to control the attrition rate. Additional attorneys were approved for FY 2017-18. Last year the JBC approved a 10 percent salary increase for all OSPD attorneys in order to address lagging

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1/1/2010 1/1/2011 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019

Monthly Felony Filings with dotted polynomial trend line

22.8%

9.1%

11.6%

8.5%

18.2%

12.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

OSPD Attorney Attrition Rate

12-Mar-2019 103 JUD-fig


salaries. Staff suspects that the increase of the attrition rate since FY 2015-16 reflects both lagging salaries and heavier workloads.

OSPD R2 IT REQUEST: The Office of the State Public Defender requests 2.7 FTE and $754,745 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 3.0 FTE and $674,975 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address the Agency’s IT staffing and funding needs. This request is comprised of:

$426,470 annually to deal with electronic discovery needs;

$204,633 and 2.7 FTE in FY 2020-21 annualizing to 3.0 FTE and $206,253 in FY 2021-22 and subsequent years for IT Support;

$81,390 onetime in FY 2020-21 to integrate with the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) eDiscovery system; and

$42,252 for security, in FY 2020-21 and on-going. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: $426,470 for electronic discovery. The move to electronic discovery over the past few years has drastically increased not only the amount of time spent retrieving discovery but also the amount of electronic storage needed. E-storage needs have increased by 775 percent since implementation of the eDiscovery system began in July 2016. In addition to the enormous increase of space needed for primary storage, these files need to be backed up locally for efficient and accessible restoration and also replicated to a secondary offsite location in case of disaster. The following chart shows the growth of actual primary storage needs, it is not a forecast.

12-Mar-2019 104 JUD-fig


The Office expects a massive further increase in its storage needs when Boulder and Denver switch to e-discovery. The agency requests $119,148 for bandwidth costs; $23,994 for mobile hotspots for better Internet access in courtrooms and places outside the office; $83,328 in additional Microsoft 365 licensing; and $200,000 in cloud storage costs. $81,390 (one time) to integrate with the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC) eDiscovery system. As a result of the volume of cases and the number of discovery files in those cases, it can be very time-consuming to download discovery. Currently, the eDiscovery system requires staff in each office, usually many staff in each office, to login daily and manually download and file each item provided as part of discovery. This new process has resulted in an increase in the amount of time spent retrieving discovery. The OSPD requests $33,390 in hardware and $ 48,000 in software development. $204,633 and 2.7 FTE in FY 2020-21 annualizing to 3.0 FTE and $206,253 in FY 2021-22 and subsequent years for IT support. As caseload grows, support staff are needed to assist in areas such as body camera videos, cell phone extracts, financial information and varied surveillance systems.. IT staff need to understand the new tools and applications, they also need to be able to provide timely assistance and individual support for the OSPD’s current staff of almost 900. The current ratio of IT help desk staff to total staff is 1:295.

OSPD R3 SOCIAL WORKERS REQUEST: The Office of the State Public Defender requests 8.2 FTE and $551,940 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 9.0 FTE and $543,530 for FY 2021-22 and on-going. The request would fund 1.0 Supervising Social Worker and 8.0 Licensed Social Workers.

12-Mar-2019 105 JUD-fig


RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Social workers are equipped to recognize and advocate for services to meet the needs of defendants with special needs, such as mental health or substance abuse issues, or physical, cognitive, or social-emotional disabilities. Social workers also have specialized knowledge about a wide variety of evidenced-based programming to meet those needs. Defense-based social workers assist attorneys in advocating for the needs of individuals by developing case planning recommendations that address issues such as pretrial release, detention, alternative placements, treatment options, appropriate conditions of probation or diversion, and sentencing and post-sentencing options. The incorporation of forensic social workers into defense practice can reduce overall system costs and increase community safety, by expanding upon and advocating for safe, appropriate alternatives to incarceration. H.B. 14-1023 provided the OSPD with 8.0 FTE social worker positions. These positions have been utilized in juvenile cases where children are facing detention and in serious cases where felony charges are being considered for filing in adult court. Last year, working within its existing budget, the OSPD hired four social workers dedicated to adult cases. A review of two months of work by these workers shows the workers are spending almost half of their case-related work on the most serious of felonies. Further, almost 90% of their case-related time is spent on non-drug-related felonies, leaving little time to assist defendants on misdemeanors and drug felonies. OSPD also currently lacks the capacity to ensure social work assistance is effectively available in rural jurisdictions throughout the state. In the last 6 months of FY 2018-19, OSPD staff identified 92 clients whose cases have reached conclusion where the disposition of the case was positively impacted by the biopsychosocial assessments and case management planning conducted by the social worker in some way. Specifically, 23 of these clients had significant, identifiable reductions in sentence related to the social worker’s mitigation and case planning which resulted in a theoretic monetary cost savings to the state of more than $6,740,905. This cost saving analysis is based on reductions in length or type of sentence. It was calculated by identifying either the plea negotiation offer before the defense provided the mitigation and case management plan developed by the social worker or the assigned public defender’s analysis of typical plea offers and sentences imposed for similar cases in the jurisdiction before contribution by a social worker. That data is then compared with the actual sentence imposed in each case after the social worker’s contribution. Where defendants received lesser sentences, the cost of incarceration was calculated for the difference in time between anticipated outcome and outcome after social worker contribution. With the requested 8.0 Social Worker FTE, OSPD will have a total of 21.0 trial office social worker FTE positions state-wide. The addition of a Supervising Social Worker provides OSPD the capacity to develop state-wide policies and procedures that govern the work undertaken by the social work team. With this request, the OSPD will hire 1.0 supervising licensed social worker at an annual salary of $57,262 and 8.0 licensed social workers at a salary of $51,168.

12-Mar-2019 106 JUD-fig


OSPD R4 MANDATED COSTS REQUEST: The Office of the State Public Defender requests an additional $431,712 General Fund for its Mandated Costs line item for FY 2020-21 and $519,402 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Background: Mandated costs are costs that are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases and are necessary to ensure a fair and speedy trial and the right to quality legal representation. They include things like transcripts, experts, interpreters and travel. The necessity and amount charged for these mandated costs are to a substantial extent beyond the control of the OSPD. Mandated costs generally move in step with caseload and workload, so it is unsurprising that mandated costs have risen. However, for the first time since FY 15-16, mandated costs per case have risen. The earlier declines were due to e-discovery. When E-discovery was introduced, DA’s were no longer permitted to charge for discoverable materials. The request equals the projected shortfall in the mandated costs appropriation in FY 2020-21.

OSPD R5 LEASES REQUEST: The Office of the State Public Defender requests $357,103 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to $563,624 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, for lease expense that are increasing due to Colorado’s tighter office market. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The OSPD utilizes the services of Jones Lang LaSalle, a brokerage firm contracted by the Office of the State Architect to assist state agencies in the negotiations and contract preparation for the OSPD’s 21 office locations throughout the state. Ten years ago Colorado was in a recession. Consequently, we were able to obtain leases with unusually favorable terms. Many of our leases were negotiated with very modest rates and lease escalation clauses. Over the past few years, almost all of our leases have required re-negotiation to add additional space or to address the expiration of the lease term either by lease renewals or relocation of the office. Because the current Colorado economy is strong, rental rates have increased dramatically and built-in escalation clauses have been difficult to negotiate with such low terms.

12-Mar-2019 107 JUD-fig


OSPD R6 GOLDEN COURTROOM STAFFING REQUEST: The OSPD requests 1.6 FTE and $115,941 General Fund for FY 2020-21, annualizing to 1.6 FTE and $103,541 for FY 2021-22 and subsequent years, to address staffing and funding needs for an additional criminal court in the 1st Judicial District (Jefferson County). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The request includes 1.0 trial attorney FTE, 0.3 investigator FTE and 0.3 administrative staff FTE. When S.B. 19-043 (the Judges bill) was enacted, it included additional funding for the OSPD to staff the criminal courts that were created. Based on information provided by main Judicial, the OSPD believed that the new judgeship in the 1st Judicial District would handle probate cases only, which would not require OSPD staff. The fiscal note for S.B. 19-043 stated that any changes the projected number of criminal courts could alter the OSPD’s staffing needs. Shortly after S.B. 19-043 went into effect, the OSPD was notified by the Chief Judge in the 1st Judicial District that their new judge would handle a mixed docket that includes criminal cases. This request is to staff the criminal cases in that court. This request includes 1.0 trial attorney FTE, 0.3 investigator FTE and 0.3 administrative staff FTE.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER

PERSONAL SERVICES This line item provides funding to support staff in the central administrative and appellate offices in Denver, as well as the 21 regional trial offices. The following table details the staffing composition of these offices.

STAFFING SUMMARY

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER 15-16

ACTUAL 16-17

ACTUAL 17-18

ACTUAL 18-19

ACTUAL 19-20

APPROP 20-21

REQUEST

State Public Defender, Asst State PD and Chief Deputies

3.4 3.5 2.9 4.0 4.0 4.0

Statewide Complex Case Management 9.1 9.1 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.0 Statewide Policy and Support

4.0 4.7 6.0 6.0

Finance/ Operations 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.0 Human Resources 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Information Technology 10.0 8.7 9.0 11.9 14.0 16.7 Training 3.0 3.8 3.2 4.0 5.0 5.0 Administrative and Executive Assistants 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 3.8 6.4 Total - Central Office 38.3 37.9 39.1 43.6 50.8 56.1

Appellate Attorneys 43.7 41.8 43.5 44.3 46.3 46.3 Office Head 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0

Investigators/ Legal Assistants 6.5 7.4 8.2 8.0 9.0 9.0 Administrative Support Staff 6.2 5.8 5.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 Office Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Subtotal - Support Staff 13.7 14.2 15.1 15.9 16.8 16.8 Ratio of Support Staff to Attorneys 30.6% 33.2% 33.9% 35.2% 35.4% 35.4% Total - Appellate Office 58.4 57.0 59.6 61.1 64.0 64.0

Trial Attorneys 394.4 403.2 406.2 413.9 464.0 501.8 Office Heads 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 21.0 21.0

12-Mar-2019 108 JUD-fig


STAFFING SUMMARY

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER 15-16

ACTUAL 16-17

ACTUAL 17-18

ACTUAL 18-19

ACTUAL 19-20

APPROP 20-21

REQUEST Investigators/ Legal Assistants 129.2 129.9 136.9 146.5 154.0 166.5 Social Workers 7.9 7.9 8.8 11.4 13.0 21.2 Administrative Support Staff 81.8 83.3 87.5 94.2 101.3 110.8 Office Managers 20.6 21.0 21.0 19.8 21.0 21.0 Subtotal - Support Staff 239.5 242.1 254.2 272.0 289.3 319.5 Ratio of Support Staff to Attorneys 57.7% 57.1% 59.5% 62.6% 59.6% 61.1% Total - Regional Trial Offices 654.8 665.9 681.2 706.7 774.3 842.3

Total 751.5 760.8 779.9 811.4 889.1 962.4

Table excludes FTE supported by grants.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $82,302,270 General Fund and 962.4 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $69,653,973 $69,653,973 $0 $0 $0 874.8


TOTAL $70,501,132 $70,501,132 $0 $0 $0 888.8



Annualize prior budget actions 6,756,220 6,756,220 0 0 0 0.5




OSPD R2 IT 181,983 181,983 0 0 0 2.7


TOTAL $82,302,270 $82,302,270 $0 $0 $0 962.4





HEALTH, LIFE, AND DENTAL This line item provides funding for the employer's share of the cost of group benefit plans providing health, life, and dental insurance for OSPD employees. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests an appropriation of $9,483,515 General Fund.

12-Mar-2019 109 JUD-fig


RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, which is consistent with Committee common policy.

SHORT-TERM DISABILITY This line item provides funding for the employer's share of OSPD employees' short-term disability insurance premiums. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (13), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $125,131General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $125,131, which is consistent with Committee common policy.

S.B. 04-257 AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (AED) Pursuant to S.B. 04-257, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) for OSPD staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $3,644,425 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $3,678,439, which accords with Committee common policy.

S.B. 06-235 SUPPLEMENTAL AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (SAED) Pursuant to S.B. 06-235, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for PERA for OSPD staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $3,644,425 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $3,678,439, which accords with Committee common policy.

SALARY SURVEY The OSPD uses this line item to pay for annual salary increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104, C.R.S.

12-Mar-2019 110 JUD-fig


REQUEST: The OSPD requests no appropriation for this line item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.

MERIT PAY The OSPD uses this line item to pay for performance-related pay increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests a $1,528,585 General Fund appropriation for merit pay increases for all employees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $2,292,878.

PARENTAL LEAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests a no appropriation for parental leave. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation is pending.

OPERATING EXPENSES This line item provides funding for basic office operational expenses, including:

Travel and motor pool expenses;

Equipment lifecycle replacement, rental, and maintenance;

Office and printing supplies, postage, cleaning supplies, and other general operating expenses;

Telephone; and

Employee training expenses. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests a total of $1,927,608, including $1,897,608 General Fund and $30,000 cash funds from training fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.

VEHICLE LEASE PAYMENTS This line item provides funding for annual payments to the Department of Personnel and Administration for the cost of administration, loan repayment, and lease-purchase payments for new and replacement motor vehicles. The FY 2019-20 appropriation covers costs associated with 30

12-Mar-2019 111 JUD-fig


vehicles. There are no new vehicles for FY 2018-20. The OSPD reimburses employees for mileage when using their own vehicles to conduct official business. The vehicles are used: by regional office staff for daily business (e.g., driving to a courthouse, visiting clients in jail, interviewing witnesses, etc.); by an investigator who does not have a physical office and whose responsibilities require him to drive statewide throughout the year; and by staff in the central administrative office for statewide support functions (e.g., information technology, audit, facility review, inventory). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-30-1104 (2), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $96,009 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation for this line item is pending the Committee's common policy for vehicle lease payments, scheduled for May 14th.

CAPITAL OUTLAY This line item provides funding for the one-time costs associated with new employees (office furniture, a computer and software, etc.). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $458,800General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.

LEASED SPACE/ UTILITIES This line item funds lease payments at 22 OSPD locations statewide. This line item covers all OSPD leases except those associated with the OSPD's central administrative and appellate offices, which are located at the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center. All Carr Center leased space costs for judicial agencies are included in the line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the budget. Typically, the OSPD negotiates leases for ten years. The OSPD estimates future space needs for each office. For offices that are anticipated to grow, the intent is generally to fill the space in approximately seven years, and then expand into common spaces in the final three years of the lease agreement. The OSPD utilizes the State's lease consultant (a vendor selected by the Department of Personnel and Administration) to conduct market surveys and analysis concerning available space and to negotiate lease contracts. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $8,019,383 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.

12-Mar-2019 112 JUD-fig


AUTOMATION PLAN This line item funds the maintenance and lifecycle replacement of the following types of equipment for all 23 OSPD offices:

Phone systems;

Data circuits for electronic data transmission;

Multifunction scanner/copier/fax/printers;

Desktop computers, laptop/tablet computers, docking stations, and screens;

Software licenses (includes Adobe Professional and specialized courtroom and case analysis software);

Servers and network equipment (routers, switches, racks, etc.);

Presentation, analysis, and recording equipment (cameras, projectors, digital voice recorders, etc.); and

IT security protection services, which are the subject of request R4, IT Security In addition, this line item funds technology-related supplies and contractual expenses for online legal research resources. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $2,242,194 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION This line item covers the cost of annual attorney registration fees for OSPD attorneys. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests $156,824 as shown in the following table. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request.

CONTRACT SERVICES This line item allows the OSPD to hire attorneys to represent the Public Defender’s attorneys in grievance claims filed by former clients. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests a continuation appropriation of $49,395 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

12-Mar-2019 113 JUD-fig


MANDATED COSTS This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". These costs are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and/or the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. Approximately 40 percent of the OSPD’s mandated costs formerly came from reimbursing district attorney (DA) offices for duplicating discoverable materials. Discovery costs declined sharply when E-discovery was introduced and DA’s were no longer permitted to charge for discoverable materials. The OSPD still has discovery costs for such things as obtaining records from sheriff offices, the Department of Corrections, and the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, but these costs have declined more than 90 percent since their FY 2015-16 peak. The OSPD also incurs costs for transcripts, expert witnesses, interpreter services (for activities outside the courtroom), and travel (both for witnesses and for public defender staff to conduct out-of-state investigations). The following table and chart provide a history of OSPD mandated cost expenditures since FY 2010-11.

OSPD MANDATED COSTS DESCRIPTION FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19

Transcripts $1,343,846 $1,408,864 $1,320,864 $1,416,697 $1,556,613 $1,659,337 $1,662,968 $1,768,138 $1,902,819

Discovery 1,514,957 1,623,452 1,751,829 1,932,652 2,103,438 2,299,822 1,317,912 168,637

202,222

Experts 474,661 485,145 785,941 1,054,820 1,209,391 1,010,174 1,076,575 1,028,559

930,319

Travel 74,700 65,471 119,749 214,709 142,972 195,280 232,183 214,570

213,390

Interpreters 93,239 117,828 126,459 128,349 147,371 164,975 160,465 213,835

232,034

Misc. 14,976 57,871 21,646 30,660 17,931 31,003 36,139 48,074

42,171

Total $3,516,379 $3,758,631 $4,126,488 $4,777,888 $5,177,716 $5,360,590 $4,486,242 $3,441,813 $3,522,955

Annual % change 13.70% 6.90% 9.80% 15.80% 8.40% 3.50% -16.30% -23.28% 2.36%

Active cases 122,949 120,498 125,606 142,907 159,814 167,814 175,873 183,078 185,772

Avg mandated cost per case

$28.60 $31.19 $32.85 $33.43 $32.40 $31.94 $26.51 $18.80 $18.96

Annual % change 11.70% 9.10% 5.30% 1.80% -3.10% -1.40% -20.10% -29.08% 0.87%

12-Mar-2019 114 JUD-fig


STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: OSPD requests a continuing appropriation of $3,813,431 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

GRANTS This line item authorizes the OSPD to receive and expend various grants. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-1-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OSPD requests an appropriation of $25,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, GRANTS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


HB 18-1322 (Long Bill) $175,000 $0 $175,000 $0 $0 2.3

TOTAL $175,000 $0 $175,000 $0 $0 2.3


FY 2018-19 Appropriation $175,000 $0 $175,000 $0 $0 2.3

OSPD R2 Refinance Denver criminal court grant

(150,000) 0 (150,000) 0 0 (2.0)

TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 0.3

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

Mil

lio

ns

OSPD Mandated Costs

Total

Avg mandated costper case

12-Mar-2019 115 JUD-fig


INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($150,000) $0 ($150,000) $0 $0 (2.0)

Percentage Change (85.7%) 0.0% (85.7%) 0.0% 0.0% (87.0%)

FY 2019-20 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 0.3


12-Mar-2019 116 JUD-fig


(6) OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) is an independent agency within the Judicial Branch that provides legal representation for indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases in which the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) is precluded from doing so because of an ethical conflict of interest24. Common types of conflicts include cases in which the OSPD represents co-defendants or represents both a witness and a defendant in the same case. Section 21-2-103, C.R.S., specifically states that case overload, lack of resources, and other similar circumstances shall not constitute a conflict of interest. The OADC provides legal representation by contracting with licensed attorneys and investigators. Such contracts must provide for reasonable compensation (based on either a fixed fee or hourly rates) and reimbursement for expenses necessarily incurred (e.g., expert witnesses, investigators, legal assistants, and interpreters). The OADC is to establish a list of qualified attorneys for use by the court in making appointments in conflict cases25. The OADC is governed by the nine-member Alternate Defense Counsel Commission, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court. Commission members serve on a voluntary basis and receive no compensation for their time. The Commission appoints an individual to serve as the Alternate Defense Counsel, who manages the Office. The compensation for this individual is fixed by the General Assembly (through a Long Bill footnote) and may not be reduced during his or her five-year term of appointment. The Alternate Defense Counsel employs and fixes the compensation for any employees necessary to carry out his or her duties, which include: selecting and assigning attorneys, executing contracts, examining attorney case assignments to evaluate nature of conflict of interest, reviewing attorney invoices for appropriateness, and approving payments. Senate Bill 18-203 gave the OADC new duties related to municipal courts. (See Sections 13-10-114.5, 21-2-103 and 21-2-108, C.R.S.). The bill requires municipalities to provide free, independent, and competent legal counsel by January 1, 2020 for each indigent defendant charged with a municipal code violation that has a possible sentence of incarceration. Municipal defenders must be periodically evaluated for competency and independence by a nonpartisan entity that is independent of the municipality and its municipal court. The OADC, an independent commission, or any accredited Colorado law school legal aid clinic can serve as such an entity. The OADC began the evaluation process in January 2020 for fifty-six different municipalities pursuant to their request. The bill does not require municipalities to pay for evaluation services. If resources allow, the OADC will begin providing lists of approved attorneys who have been determined to be independent and competent to municipalities that request this assistance starting in January 2022. Municipalities will select and pay these attorneys directly for their services. Senate Bill 18-203 established the Conflict-free Municipal Defense Fund, which receives money collected from municipalities and is continuously appropriated to the OADC, but does not specify the services for which the OADC will receive payments from municipalities. The OADC has hired a coordinator and an assistant to run the program. 24 See Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. 25 The court has judicial discretion to appoint a private attorney who is not on the approved OADC list. However, the OADC is not required to pay for such representation.

12-Mar-2019 117 JUD-fig


The OADC employs 16.0 FTE. Its office is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, and the associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides free administrative support to the OADC, including: fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; payroll and benefits; and a server room. With the exception of a small amount of cash funds from training registration fees and DVD sales, the OADC is supported by General Fund appropriations.

OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $48,139,361 $48,059,361 $80,000 $0 $0 15.9


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 10,617 10,617 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $48,169,978 $48,089,978 $80,000 $0 $0 15.9




OADC R2 Coordinator of adjunct services

110,021 110,021 0 0 0 0.9



OADC R5 BA1 Operating adjustments 67,758 67,758 0 0 0 0.0


2,383,172 2,383,172 0 0 0 0.0

OADC (Unnumbered request) Salary increase for executive director

9,414 9,414 0 0 0 0.0

Centrally appropriated line items 67,285 67,285 0 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation (10,952) (10,952) 0 0 0 0.1

Annualize prior budget actions (109,973) (109,973) 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $54,894,123 $54,814,123 $80,000 $0 $0 17.8





$138,372 $138,372 $0 $0 $0 1.2

DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL

MULTIPLE AGENCY CONTRACTOR RATE INCREASE Decision items that affect multiple divisions normally appear at the beginning of a figure setting document. Staff has placed the multiple agency contractor rate increase here, where it precedes the three agencies that are most affected by it. REQUEST: The Judicial Department, the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of the Child’s Representative, and the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel jointly request $4,781,868 General Fund for a 5 percent rate increase for the contract attorneys, paralegals,

12-Mar-2019 118 JUD-fig


investigators, social workers, and others who work for them. The following table details the increase for each agency.

CONTRACTOR RATE INCREASE AGENCY REQUESTED INCREASE

JUD BA4 Contract attorney rate increase $253,659

OADC R6 COLA-based contractor hourly rate increase 2,383,172

OCR R7 Court-appointed counsel rate increase 1,145,367

ORPC R8 Contractor rate increase 999,670

Total $4,781,868

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The following chart shows the rate that the OADC has paid for contract attorneys in the most common felony cases since 1999. The Office of the Child’s Representative, and the Office of the Respondent Parents Council have shorter rate histories.

Only two years have elapsed since the last rate increase – the previous two increases followed pauses of 6 and 4 years. This represents a new approach by the requesting agencies, which plan to ask for smaller increases more frequently To make the case for these rates, the three agencies point to other, higher hourly billing rates for attorneys.

1. The Department of Law’s hourly billing rate for attorneys for FY 2019-20 is $111.93. 2. Federal Courts pay $148 per hour to represent defendants in non-capital cases.26

26 For rates paid by U.S. courts see https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-2-ss-230-compensation-and-expenses#a230_16 and the higher rates for capital cases at https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-6-ss-630-compensation-appointed-counsel#a630_10_20.

47.00 42.00

47.00

56.00 59.00

65.00

75.00 80.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

7/

1/

99

7/

1/

00

7/

1/

01

7/

1/

02

7/

1/

03

7/

1/

04

7/

1/

05

7/

1/

06

7/

1/

07

7/

1/

08

7/

1/

09

7/

1/

10

7/

1/

11

7/

1/

12

7/

1/

13

7/

1/

14

7/

1/

15

7/

1/

16

7/

1/

17

7/

1/

18

7/

1/

19

7/

1/

20

OADC hourly attorney rate for the most common felonies

12-Mar-2019 119 JUD-fig

https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-2-ss-230-compensation-and-expenses#a230_16

https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-2-ss-230-compensation-and-expenses#a230_16

https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-6-ss-630-compensation-appointed-counsel#a630_10_20

https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-6-ss-630-compensation-appointed-counsel#a630_10_20


3. The average hourly rate charged by Colorado attorneys according to a Colorado Bar association member survey is $243.

4. Colorado State employees, including attorneys at various agencies, received a 3 percent

increases to base salaries for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, and are likely to receive a another 3 percent this year.

To get a sense of how much contract attorneys make, staff conducted an internet survey of contractors from the OADC, the OCR, and the ORPC. Unfortunately, the answer proved elusive, though staff is comfortable saying that a contract attorney who works 40 hours per week at his or her law practice, takes off on the normal holidays, and takes 3 weeks of vacation annually, won't make a lot of money, perhaps $60,000 annually. Based on this survey and these comparisons, staff recommends approval of this request.

OADC R1 OADC CASELOAD INCREASE REQUEST: The OADC requests $4,102,615 General Fund for the Agency’s projected caseload increase for FY 2020-21, comprised of $3,839,554 for its Conflict-of-interest Contracts line item and $263,061 for its Mandated Costs line item. The agency projects that its caseload will rise by 10.5% from 26,430 cases in FY 2019-20 to 29,914 in FY 2020-21. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, however. ANALYSIS: At the request of JBC staff, the OADC updated the forecast for this request on March 2nd so it could include recent data in the forecast. The number of cases that the OADC receives is largely beyond its control. It has relatively more control over the cost per case. During its December hearing, the ADC presented a table that showed that cost per case is lower now than it was 9 years ago, so that cost is not a cause for concern.

The OADC changed the billing rules for its contractors in January 2018. Formerly contractors had 90 days to bill OADC after providing services but after this change contractors had only 45 days. The result was an acceleration of billings in the first months of 2018, followed by slower growth. The OADC uses the trends in its monthly billing data as an input when it forecasts the total that it will pay for casework during the year. The unusually fast and then slow growth that occurred following the billing change made it difficult to forecast the cost of caseload for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. The OADC is now using a one-year lookback period to forecast costs, which excludes those anomalous months. The result should be a more accurate forecast.

OADC R2 COORDINATOR OF ADJUNCT SERVICES REQUEST: The OADC requests $110,021 General Fund and 0.9 FTE to hire a Coordinator of Adjunct Services who will coordinate the work of the contract investigators, paralegals, legal

12-Mar-2019 120 JUD-fig

http://www.cobar.org/portals/COBAR/repository/2017EconomicSurvey.pdf


researchers, social workers, and case assistants who work in conjunction with OADC contract attorneys to defend clients. (JBC staff has adjusted this request for the paydate shift.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Providers of adjunct services account for 30 percent of the hours billed by OADC contractors; contract attorneys account for the remaining 70 percent. This arrangement saves money by substituting lower priced adjunct time for work that would otherwise be done by higher priced attorneys. Identifying and recruiting providers of these support services takes time and effort, especially in rural areas, time that existing staff cannot spare without diminishing the other work that they do. In addition to building and maintaining a list of available contractors, the Adjunct Coordinator would make sure contract attorneys received the most qualified support person at the lowest hourly rate for any given task. Additional coordinator duties would include maintaining the OADC's eLibrary, which attorneys draw upon as they prepare cases. The Coordinator would add new material, cull outdated items, and ensure the continuing usefulness of this support resource. Staff believes that it makes sense to offload the selection and management of adjunct services and thus free the office’s attorneys to focus more on selection and management of attorney contractors.

OADC R3 STAFF ACCOUNTANT REQUEST: The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel requests $104,805 and 1.0 FTE to add a Staff Accountant. (JBC staff has adjusted this request for the paydate shift.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: This accountant will assist the Billing Administrator with contractor invoice review, entry corrections, billing correspondence, state warrant reconciliations, and regular billing audits to ensure compliance with OADC payment directives; and assist the Chief Financial Officer with monthly year-end journal entries, CORE budget entries, payroll reconciliations, and OSA audit requests. The position will also help with operational functions within the Division including procurement card tracking, staff and contractor travel coordination, review, process, audit internal reimbursements, cash receipt processing, and office motor pool administration. Two current employees have been handling these function since 1996 and 2004 and the number of transactions they must process has grown by over 400 percent since 2004 due to caseload growth. The OASD worries that its two longest tenured staff members will burn out unless they receive assistance. The State Auditor’s September 2018 performance audit of the Office of the Child’s Representative influenced this recommendation. The structure and operation of the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, the Office of the Child’s Representative, and the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel are similar. Deficiencies discovered in one office are likely to arise in the other offices. The September 2018 audit criticized the OCR for (1) inadequate internal control over payments to contractors and procurement card tracking, (2) deficient selection, monitoring, and renewal of its

12-Mar-2019 121 JUD-fig


contract attorneys, and (3) insufficient oversight of the CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program. The first of these criticisms is relevant for the ADC. This additional accountant will help the OADC in areas where the State Auditor identified OCR deficiencies.

OADC R4 PROGRAMS ANALYST REQUEST: The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel requests 1.0 FTE and $117,653 General Fund to add a Programs Analyst and $5,000 General Fund for an online analytics software program to be used by the programs analyst. The OADC says that it needs this individual to increase its ability to perform essential analysis of the available data for oversight, evaluations, and forecasting functions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Staff does not believe that the analytic needs of the Office are sufficient to justify an employee with this expertise.

OADC R5 OPERATING ADJUSTMENTS OADC R5 OPERATING ADJUSTMENTS: The OADC requests $67,758 General Fund for operating expenses for FY 2020-21, comprised of Two operating expense increases that will continue in future years:

$1,045 for land-line phones in the OADC’s offices,

$16,713 for 50 Westlaw licenses, which are used by attorney contractors for legal research. Two one-time, non-base building operating expense increases:

$40,000 to build out two additional offices within the Agency's current office space to house the additional FTE who will be added if requests R3 and R4 are approved.

$10,000 to integrate an online tool that helps contract attorneys identify, review, and rate experts for OADC cases into the Office's web-based billing system (CAAPS), which contractors also utilize.

Adjusting the operating expense for other approved requests. The $40,000 office build-out part of this request is based on the assumption that requests R2, R3, and R4 are all approved, which would add 3.0 FTE to the OADC staff. The OADC currently has enough built-out office space for 1.0 additional FTE. If 0 or 1 more FTE are approved, there is no need for the $40,000 build-out appropriation. If two additional FTE are approved, the cost of building out one additional office will be $25,000. If three FTE are approve, the cost of building out two additional office will be $40,000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request with an adjustment for the FTE approved by the Committee. If the staff recommendation for two additional FTE is accepted, the office build-out costs will be $25,000.

12-Mar-2019 122 JUD-fig


SALARY INCREASE FOR THE OADC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: REQUEST: OADC (unnumbered request from OADC Commission) Salary Increase for the OADC executive director: (This request comes directly from the Office of the Alternative Defense Counsel Commission, which oversees the OADC). The Commission requests that the salary of the Executive Director of the OADC be set equal to the salary of the State Public Defender, which requires a $9,414 General Fund appropriation. This $9,414 increase includes benefits, the actual salary increase equals 4.3 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Background: A Long Bill footnote currently sets the OADC Director’s salary equal to the salary of a district court judge ($178,445 annually for FY 2020-21 if the 3 percent salary increase approved by the JBC becomes law). The same judicial-salary footnote also sets the salaries of the directors of the Office of the Child’s Representative and the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel equal to that of a district court judge. However, the salary of the State Public Defender is set by the same footnote equal to that of an associate judge of the Court of Appeals ($186,118 annually for FY 2020-21, again based on a 3 percent raise). Members of the OADC Commission met with JBC staff and compared a list of the duties and responsibilities of the State Public Defender with the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Director of the OADC. This comparison showed that in many of ways the work of the OADC Director is sufficiently broad and complex to make it the equivalent of the work of the State Public Defender. As a consequence, the Commission argues, the two should be paid equally. The Commission acknowledges that the Office of the State Public Defender has 889 FTE compared to 16 in the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, but notes that the selection, evaluation, renewal, and termination process for the 700 OADC contractors is as complex a management task as that faced by the State Public Defender. In addition, with the passage of S.B. 18-203, the OADC’s responsibilities also include evaluation of attorney contractors who do public defense work for municipalities around the state if those municipalities decide to contract with the OADC for evaluation services. Furthermore, the work that OADC contractors do is the same as that done by attorneys in the Office of the State Public Defender, representing adults and juveniles who are charged with all types of crimes, ranging from death penalty cases to jailable traffic offenses. When considering this request, staff sought information on the pay of executive directors of executive branch agencies. Staff discovered that these directors are paid between approximately $160,000 and $175,000, with the exception of the Executive Director of the Department of Education, whose salary is set by State Board of Education and is more than $100,000 higher. Thus the salary of the State Public Defender is about $4,000 higher than the salary of the highest paid executive-branch executive director and the head of the OADC is about $2,000 lower. Staff also looked at old Long Bills to see if the reference salary for the OADC Executive Director has changed. Even in 2003, when the OADC had only 3 employees, the reference salary was that of a District Court Judge. Staff concludes that the salary of the OADC Executive Director has never been related to the size of the agency. If size mattered, the reference salary would have been lower in

12-Mar-2019 123 JUD-fig


2003. When the reference salary was originally set, the legal responsibilities, duties, and stature of the OADC Executive Director may have been the most important consideration. Staff concludes that it is appropriate to give the Executive Director of the OADC a 4.3 percent pay raise to bring it to the level of the State Public Defender. However, Staff is not at this time making a similar recommendation for the salaries of the Executive Directors of the OCR and the ORPC. Staff would need to be separately convinced that their duties warrant an increase.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL

PERSONAL SERVICES This line item provides funding to support a central administrative office in Denver. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $1,917,637 General Fund and 17.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $1,824,520 General Fund and 15.6 FTE. Staff also requests permission to adjust this line item, if necessary, to maintain the alignment of the salary for the Alternate Defense Counsel with that of a district court judge.

OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $1,600,296 $1,600,296 $0 $0 $0 14.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $4,530 $4,530 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $1,604,826 $1,604,826 $0 $0 $0 14.0



OADC R2 Coordinator of adjunct services 83,840 83,840 0 0 0 0.9





TOTAL $1,824,520 $1,824,520 $0 $0 $0 15.8




Request Above/(Below) Recommendation $93,117 $93,117 $0 $0 $0 1.2

12-Mar-2019 124 JUD-fig


HEALTH, LIFE, AND DENTAL This line item provides funding for the employer's share of the cost of group benefit plans providing health, life, and dental insurance for OADC staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $257,673 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $236,456 General Fund.

SHORT-TERM DISABILITY This line item provides funding for the employer's share of OADC employees' short-term disability insurance premiums. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (13), C.R.S REQUEST: The OADC requests $3,278 General Fund based on applying a rate of 0.17 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $3,114 General Fund.

S.B. 04-257 AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (AED) Pursuant to S.B. 04-257, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) for OADC staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $103,036 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $97,874 General Fund.

S.B. 06-235 SUPPLEMENTAL AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (SAED) Pursuant to S.B. 06-235, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for PERA for OADC staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $103,036 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $97,874 General Fund.

SALARY SURVEY

12-Mar-2019 125 JUD-fig


The OADC uses this line item to pay for annual salary increases. In this case it is for a raise for the Executive Director. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $8,620 for a raise for the Executive Director. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request.

MERIT PAY The OADC uses this line item to pay for longevity or performance-related pay increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104 (1) (c), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $55,221 General Fund for merit pay increases. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request.

PARENTAL LEAVE The Department of Personnel states that this appropriation is part of a policy that will provide eight weeks of paid leave for qualifying parental events, such as a birth, adoption, or foster placement. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: None. REQUEST: The Department does not request an appropriation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is pending the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

OPERATING EXPENSES This line item provides funding for the operating expenses and information technology asset maintenance for the OADC, and for reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred by Alternate Defense Counsel Commission members. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $197,695 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $191,345 General Fund.

CAPITAL OUTLAY

12-Mar-2019 126 JUD-fig


This line item provides funding for the one-time costs associated with new employees (office furniture, a computer and software, etc.). STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $21,600 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $14,400 General Fund.

TRAINING AND CONFERENCES This line item is used to provide training opportunities for contract lawyers, investigators, and legal assistants. Training sessions are also open to attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender, as well as the private bar. The OADC conducts live training sessions, which are recorded and made available statewide via webcast and DVD reproductions for those who are unable to attend in person. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests a continuation appropriation of $100,000, including $20,000 General Fund and $80,000 cash funds. The source of cash funds is registration fees and DVD sales. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request to allow the OADC to meet the training needs of contractors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONTRACTS This line item provides funding for contract attorneys and investigators who are appointed to represent indigent defendants. Payments cover hourly rates and any associated PERA contributions for PERA retirees, as well as reimbursement for costs such as mileage, copying, postage, and travel expenses. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $48,876,942 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $48,876,942.

OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONTRACTS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $42,654,216 $42,654,216 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $42,654,216 $42,654,216 $0 $0 $0 0.0



12-Mar-2019 127 JUD-fig


OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONTRACTS TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE



2,383,172 2,383,172 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $48,876,942 $48,876,942 $0 $0 $0 0.0





MANDATED COSTS This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". These costs are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and/or the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. For the OADC, these costs include the following:

expert witnesses;

reimbursement of district attorney offices for discovery costs/ electronic replication grand jury proceedings;

transcripts;

interpreters - out of court;

PERA contributions for contractors with PERA benefits; and

Expert witness travel reimbursement. The following table provides a history of OADC mandated cost expenditures since FY 2009-10.

OADC - MANDATED COSTS FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19

Transcripts $290,268 $305,227 $343,090 $424,992 $396,190 $474,701 $519,920 $460,441

Discovery* 626,180 648,392 729,605 778,445 720,954 387,284 9,954 9,371

Experts 476,272 691,889 757,738 978,372 972,940 1,118,823 1,356,874 1,070,943

Travel 37,927 67,216 68,969 10,518 24,242 58,284 61,987 80,456

Interpreters 29,364 21,058 25,886 23,339 28,562 23,077 47,923 35,657

Misc. 9,934 30,820 12,994 23,036 55,417 78,712 58,074 24,184

OADC Total $1,469,945 $1,764,602 $1,938,282 $2,238,702 $2,198,305 $2,140,881 $2,054,731 $1,681,052

Annual Percent Change

2.80% 20.00% 9.80% 15.50% -1.80% -2.61% -4.02% -18.19%

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 21-2-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $3,185,451 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

12-Mar-2019 128 JUD-fig


MUNICIPAL COURT PROGRAM Senate Bill 18-203 requires municipalities to provide legal representation for indigent defendants charged with a municipal code violation that has a possible sentence of incarceration. The bill requires municipal defenders to be periodically evaluated and establishes the OADC as a potential evaluator. The bill does not require municipalities to pay for evaluation services. If resources allow, the OADC will also begin providing lists of approved attorneys who have been determined to be independent and competent to municipalities that request this assistance starting in January 2022. Municipalities will select and pay these attorneys directly for their services. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Sections 13-10-114.5, 21-2-103, and 21-2-108, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OADC requests $202,306 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

12-Mar-2019 129 JUD-fig


(7) OFFICE OF THE CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE The Office of the Child's Representative (OCR) is responsible for "ensuring the provision of uniform, high-quality legal representation and non-legal advocacy to children involved in judicial proceedings in Colorado"27. The OCR's responsibility to children includes:

• Enhancing the provision of services by attorneys who are appointed by the court to act in the best interests of a child involved in certain proceedings (the attorneys are known as guardians ad-litem or GALs);

• Enhancing the provision of services by attorneys appointed to serve as a child's legal representative in matters involving parental responsibility when the parties are found to be indigent; and

• Enhancing the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) program in Colorado. The Office of the Child's Representative (OCR) must provide legal representation for children involved in the court system due to dependency and neglect28 proceedings that involve child abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In addition, courts have the discretion to appoint an attorney to represent children in cases involving juvenile delinquency, truancy, paternity, probate, mental health issues, alcohol or drug abuse, and high-conflict divorce. In most judicial districts, OCR provides legal representation through contract attorneys. The OCR is required to maintain and provide to the courts, on an ongoing basis, a list of qualified attorneys to whom appointments may be given. In El Paso County, which is in the 4th Judicial District, the OCR employs attorneys and other staff to provide services through a centralized office rather than through contracted services. This office was established in response to S.B. 99-215, which directed the Judicial Department to pilot alternative methods of providing GAL services. The OCR is governed by the Child's Representative Board, which is comprised of nine members appointed by the Colorado Supreme Court. Board members serve on a voluntary basis and receive no compensation for their time. The Board appoints the OCR Director, provides fiscal oversight, participates in funding decisions related to the provision of OCR services, and assists with OCR training for GALs and court-appointed special advocates (CASAs). The Board currently meets every other month. The Director's compensation is fixed by the General Assembly (through a Long Bill footnote) and may not be reduced during his or her five-year term of appointment. The OCR is supported almost entirely by General Fund appropriations. The OCR was established as an independent agency within the Judicial Department by the General Assembly, effective July 1, 2000. Previously, these services were provided by the Judicial Department. The Office employs 31 FTE. The OCR’s central administrative office is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, and the associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides free administrative support to the OCR, including:

27 See Section 13-91-104 (1), C.R.S. 28 Dependency and Neglect is maltreatment of a child. Section 19-3-102, C.R.S., states that a child is neglected or dependent if a parent, guardian, or legal custodian has abandoned, abused, or mistreated the child, has allowed others to abuse or mistreat the child, has kept the child in an injurious environment, has failed to provide the child with proper parental care or with necessary subsistence, education, and medical care, or has lost control of the child. Also included are cases in which a child has run away from home or a newborn tests positive for illegal drugs.

12-Mar-2019 130 JUD-fig


fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; payroll and benefits; and a server room. With the exception of a small amount of federal grant funding that is transferred from the Department of Human Services, the OCR is supported entirely by General Fund appropriations.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $31,240,004 $31,213,095 $0 $26,909 $0 33.0


H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 7,136 7,136 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $31,306,990 $31,280,081 $0 $26,909 $0 33.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $31,306,990 $31,280,081 $0 $26,909 $0 33.0

OCR R1 Caseload/workload adjustment 728,805 728,805 0 0 0 0.0


OCR R3 Common compensation plan 53,230 53,230 0 0 0 0.0


61,776 61,776 0 0 0 0.4

OCR R5 Increase training 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0.0

OCR R6 Title IV-E funding 1,481,902 0 0 1,481,902 0 0.0

OCR R7 Court-appointed counsel rate increase

1,145,367 1,145,367 0 0 0 0.0




TOTAL $35,018,372 $33,337,703 $0 $1,680,669 $0 34.4

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $3,711,382 $2,057,622 $0 $1,653,760 $0 1.4

Percentage Change 11.9% 6.6% 0.0% 6,145.8% 0.0% 4.2%

FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $35,046,191 $33,537,380 $0 $1,508,811 $0 34.4

Request Above/(Below) Recommendation $27,819 $199,677 $0 ($171,858) $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE

OCR R6 TITLE IV-E FUNDING - AND – ORPC R4 TITLE IV-E LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Decision items that affect multiple divisions normally appear at the beginning of a figure setting document. Since Title IV-E funding only affects two divisions and they appear late in this document staff decided to place the presentation here. REQUESTS: The Office of the Child’s Representative and the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel have submitted the following requests: Office of the Child’s Representative Request OCR R6 TITLE IV-E FUNDING: The OCR requests an appropriation that will allow it to spend up to $1,481,902 of Reappropriated Title IV-E funds received from the Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to S.B. 19-258. The agency requests that $1,441,902 be

12-Mar-2019 131 JUD-fig


appropriated on the Court-appointed Counsel line, which is used to pay contract attorneys, and $40,000 be appropriated on the Operating Expenses line. The Long Bill appropriation for the Agency last year equaled $28.2 million, so Title IV-E money amounts to a 5 percent expansion of appropriations for the agency. Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel ORPC R4 Title IV-E Legal Representation: The ORPC requests authorization to spend up to $4,741,480 of additional Reappropriated Title IV-E funds received from the DHS pursuant to S.B. 19-258. The Agency requests that the appropriation be placed on a separate line item titled “IV-E Legal Representation.” During supplementals in January, the ORPC received a $2,370,740 appropriation of reappropriated funds for Title IV-E Legal Representation.29 The January supplemental plus this incremental adjustment to the appropriation brings the total Title IV-E appropriation to the ORPC for FY 2020-21 to $7,112,220. The Long Bill appropriation for the ORPC last year equaled $17.4 million, so the Title IV-E appropriation amounts to a 41 percent expansion for the agency. In addition to this increase, the agency is requesting $1.76 million of additional General Fund appropriations for FY 2020-21. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that some of the Title IV-E reimbursement be used to pay for some of the General Fund budget requests that the ORPC and the OCR have submitted to the JBC this year. Staff further recommends that the remaining Title IV-E funds be appropriated as reappropriated funds to each agency on a line item called Title IV-E Legal Representation. ANALYSIS: Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is the source of federal funding for foster care. The Children’s Bureau in the United States Department of Health and Human Services recently made a change to the Child Welfare Policy Manual that allows a state’s title IV-E agency to claim title IV-E reimbursement for costs of legal representation by an attorney for (1) a child who is a candidate for title IV-E foster care or is already in foster care and (2) the child’s parent. As a result of this change, the ORPC, applying through the state title IV-E agency (the Colorado Department of Human Services) may now receive federal matching fund for allowable legal representation costs that the ORPC incurs. These expenditures are reimbursed at a 24 percent rate. The matching funds are received by the DHS and pass through to the ORPC pursuant to Section 26-2-102.5, C.R.S., which was placed in statute last year by S.B. 19-258, a JBC bill. At the time of supplementals in January, JBC staff accepted the interpretation of the OCR and ORPC concerning how these matching funds could be spent. After conversations with other JBC staff members and careful reading of the guidance issued by the federal Children’s Bureau, this JBC staff member no longer agrees with the ORC and ORPC interpretations. The relevant federal statute reads:

(Federal) Social Security Act: 42 U.S.C. 674 (a) For each quarter beginning after September 30, 1980, each State which has a plan approved under this part shall be entitled to a payment equal to the sum of— [(1) and (2) omitted]

29 The appropriation is an add-on in Section 2 of H.B. 20-1249, not section 1.

12-Mar-2019 132 JUD-fig


(3) subject to section 472(i) an amount equal to the sum of the following proportions of the total amounts expended during such quarter as found necessary by the Secretary for the provision of child placement services and for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan [a list of expenditures follows].

In July 2019, the Children's Bureau issued the following guidance in the form of a Question and Answer (Q&A), saying that qualifying Title IV-E legal representation of parents and children in legal proceeding now qualifies for federal financial participation (FFP).

8.1B TITLE IV-E, Administrative Functions/Costs, Allowable Costs - Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program. May a title IV-E agency claim title IV-E administrative costs for attorneys to provide legal representation for the title IV-E agency, a candidate for title IV-E foster care or a title IV-E eligible child in foster care and the child's parents to prepare for and participate in all stages of foster care related legal proceedings? Answer: Yes. The statute at section 474(a)(3) of the Act and regulations at 45 CFR 1356.60(c) specify that Federal financial participation (FFP) is available at the rate of 50% for administrative expenditures necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E plan. The title IV-E agency's30 representation in judicial determinations continues to be an allowable administrative cost. Previous policy prohibited the agency from claiming title IV-E administrative costs for legal services provided by an attorney representing a child or parent. This policy is revised to allow the title IV-E agency to claim title IV-E administrative costs of independent legal representation by an attorney for a child who is a candidate for title IV-E foster care or in foster care and his/her parent to prepare for and participate in all stages of foster care legal proceedings, such as court hearings related to a child's removal from the home. These administrative costs of legal representation must be paid through the title IV-E agency. This change in policy will ensure that, among other things: reasonable efforts are made to prevent removal and finalize the permanency plan; and parents and youth are engaged in and complying with case plans. Source/Date 1/7/2019 Legal and Related References: 45 CFR 1356.60(c), [Social Security Act] section 474(a)(3) https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0474.htm

This Q&A refers to “Federal financial participation” (FFP), which is the formal term for matching federal funds. If the FFP rate for expenditures by a state program is 25%, the federal government pays 25 percent of the cost. How could the Children’s Bureau suddenly change its mind about a long standing policy that previously did not allow matching funds to be claimed for legal representation of respondent parents and of children who are involved in title IV-E proceedings? The answer is in the large grant of discretion given to the “Secretary” [of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] in 42 U.S.C. 674 (a), quoted above, which gives the Secretary the ability to allow reimbursement for “amounts expended … as found necessary by the Secretary for the provision of child placement services and for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan. So the Secretary can decide what qualifies for Title IV-E reimbursement (in this case expenditures for legal representation of respondent parents and of children who are involved in title IV-E proceedings) but does this grant of authority also allow the

30The Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) is the state's Title IV-E agency

12-Mar-2019 133 JUD-fig

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0474.htm


Secretary to decide how a recipient state will spend its reimbursement? Does it allow the Secretary to also impose a maintenance of effort requirement on the recipient state? This (Q&A) is the only written guidance the Children’s Bureau has issued concerning this matching. Note that

There is nothing in this Q&A that restricts the uses to which the FFP can be put. Based solely on this Q&A, the FFP received by the state could be spent on anything.

There is also nothing in this Q&A that indicates there is a maintenance of effort requirement associated with receipt of this FFP. Based solely on this Q&A, a state could reduce General Fund spent on qualifying representation and still get the FFP.

Nothing further has been issued in writing by the Children's Bureau on this matter. Nor has anything been issued saying that further guidance will be forthcoming. However, the Directors of the OCR and the ORCP both report that they have attended presentations in which individuals who they believe are authoritative have indicated that further guidance will be issued and that the guidance will restrict the use of FFP and say that reimbursed funds must be used to expand and enhance existing attorney services. If JBC staff is correct, then the FFP that Colorado receives for Title IV-E representation of respondent parents and of children is very flexible money. If the Directors of the OCR and the ORCP are correct, then these funds must be used to expand and enhance existing attorney services. At one point, the Director of the OCR asserted that there is a maintenance of effort requirement associated with this FFP and that maintenance of effort involves more than simply maintaining a certain dollar level of spending. There is an additional consideration involving the spending of federal reimbursement dollars that involves state statute. When CDHS receives federal matching funds it places them in the “Title IV-E administrative cost cash fund” from which they are appropriated by the General Assembly to the OCR and ORPC pursuant to Section 26-2-102.5, C.R.S.:

Section 26-2-102.5 (b)(III) Subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly, the state department [i.e. the Colorado Department of Human Services] may expend money from the fund for purposes established by rule of the state board [of human services]. The state board shall work collaboratively with the state department concerning the approved purposes and allocation of money from the fund. Approved purposes may include but are not limited to advocacy for homeless and at-risk youth, education advocacy, and activities and advocacy in specialty courts that serve children and families involved in the child welfare system. [Italics added]

The opening of this paragraph clearly establishes that these reimbursed funds must be appropriated by the General Assembly before they can be spent, but the two “mays” in the text appear to put no further restriction on the appropriation. CDHS (and by extension OCR and ORPC) may expend from the fund for purposes established by the state board of human services, or it may not. The state board may issue rules corresponding to the examples in the paragraph, or it may not.

12-Mar-2019 134 JUD-fig


Staff concludes that this provision places few constraints on the uses to which Title IV-E dollars can be spent.

OCR R1 CASELOAD/WORKLOAD ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: The OCR requests an increase of $728,805 General Fund for its Court Appointed Counsel (CAC) appropriation to pay for a projected increase in its caseload and workload. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the OCR’s method of projecting caseload and costs per case and considers them reasonable.

OCR R2 NEW STAFF ATTORNEY REQUEST: The OCR requests $171,858 General Fund and 1.0 FTE for an additional Staff Attorney who will sustain and expand OCR’s programming, litigation support, and oversight for contract attorneys. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request and recommends that the expenditure come from an appropriation of Title IV-E Legal Representation money. ANALYSIS: In response to the OCR's 2018 performance audit, the JBC added 2.0 non-attorney FTE to the OCR's staff last year. With this request the OCR seeks to add an additional attorney to its staff, which will increase its attorney count from 4 to 5 (a count that includes the Executive and Deputy Directors). This new attorney would take over some of the tasks currently performed by the Executive and Deputy Director, allowing them to focus more time on planning, coordinating, enhancing, and streamlining OCR’s programs. The new staff attorney would also spearhead such projects as the expansion of OCR’s litigation support opportunities and the development of supports for case types other than Dependency and Neglect. The new staff attorney would also take on some of the OCR’s external committee commitments, allowing more in-depth participation in those committees. Staff believes that it is important to establish that at least some of the Title IV-E money that the OCR and ORPC are receiving can be used for what might be termed “normal” expansion of the program as its caseload and needs grow. Staff also views this appropriation as a helpful experiment, a test expenditure that staff believes will easily survive a future federal audit, but if it does not will tell us much about permissible uses of federal matching Title IV-E dollars. If the expenditure does not survive federal audit, a refund, perhaps from the General Fund, would be necessary.

OCR R3 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN

12-Mar-2019 135 JUD-fig


REQUEST: The OCR requests an additional $53,230 General Fund to increase the salaries and benefits of three of its employees who, it believes, are paid less than similar employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ANALYSIS: (Background: The common compensation plan was jointly submitted in November 2018 by the OADC, the OCR and the ORPC in response to a 2017 JBC request. As approved by the JBC, the plan establishes salary ranges for the three agencies that are based on salary ranges for comparable jobs in the main Judicial Department, the Executive Branch, and the Office of the State Public Defender.) The salaries of these employees are based on the common compensation plan that was approved by the JBC last year. In two cases, the OCR proposes to change the employee's job classification and increase the salary. In the third case it proposes to move the employee further up the salary range for the class. ANALYSIS: These are substantial increases, averaging $17,743.33 per employee and two of the reclassifications involve changes of job class, suggesting that the original reference job classification was not chosen with sufficient care when the common compensation plan was established last year. Is the change of classification driven by a desire to justify a pay raise, or is it a good faith effort to find a better reference job class? Staff is also concerned that the OADC, OCR, and ORPC (the “sibling” agencies) look only to each other when deciding where an employee should be placed in the salary range for a reference job class. It is equally important to look at the distribution of salaries in the agency that is the source of the reference job class. If the sibling agencies look only to each other, a single unjustifiably high salary at one is likely to drive increases to match that salary at others. If the three agencies never look beyond their siblings, the common compensation plan will become little more than an excuse for salary increases.

OCR R4 MAKE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND IS MANAGER FULL TIME REQUEST: The OCR requests $61,776 General Fund and 0.4 FTE so that the FTE allocation and pay for its Deputy Director and its IS Manager can both be increased from 0.8 FTE to 1.0 FTE, thus converting both from part time to full time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Staff believes that is a good way to expand the staff of the OCR. There is no need to provide these individuals with offices, and thus no expense of building out an office, and there will probably be no need to provide them with health, life, and dental coverage that differs from their current elections, thus no additional HLD expense.

12-Mar-2019 136 JUD-fig


OCR R5 INCREASE TRAINING OCR R5 Increase training: The OCR requests $20,000 General Fund for training of its contractors. The increase will provide sufficient funding for its training program and make up for a recent loss of federal training dollars ($20,000 federal funds that primarily supported OCR’s annual statewide conference for Guardians ad Litem). Federal and state law require Guardians ad Litem appointed in Dependency and Neglect proceeding to receive training appropriate to the role. The OCR considers adequate training to be a key factor in ensuring high quality representation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

OCR R7 COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL RATE INCREASE This request is presented at the beginning of the Decision Items for the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE

PERSONAL SERVICES This line item provides funding to support a central administrative office in Denver and the El Paso county office, which provides Guardian Ad Litem services STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $3,420,403 General Fund and 34.4 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $3,378,737 total funds, $3,241,716 General Fund, and $137,021 reappropriated funds and 34.4 FTE.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $3,142,543 $3,142,543 $0 $0 $0 33.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $7,136 $7,136 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $3,149,679 $3,149,679 $0 $0 $0 33.0





56,649 56,649 0 0 0 0.4



OCR R3 Common compensation plan 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

TOTAL $3,378,737 $3,241,716 $0 $137,021 $0 34.4

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $229,058 $92,037 $0 $137,021 $0 1.4

12-Mar-2019 137 JUD-fig


OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE




HEALTH LIFE AND DENTAL This line item provides funding for the employer's share of the cost of group benefit plans providing health, life, and dental insurance for OCR staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $389,689 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $389,689 total funds, $371,445 General Fund and $18,244 reappropriated funds.

SHORT-TERM DISABILITY This line item provides funding for the employer's share of OCR employees' short-term disability insurance premiums. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (13), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $5,299 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $5,173 total funds, $4,967 General Fund and $206 reappropriated funds.

S.B. 04-257 AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (AED) Pursuant to S.B. 04-257, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) for OCR staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $157,724 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $154,122 total funds, $148,023 General Fund and $6,099 reappropriated funds.

12-Mar-2019 138 JUD-fig


S.B. 06-235 SUPPLEMENTAL AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (SAED) Pursuant to S.B. 06-235, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for PERA for OCR staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $157,724 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $154,122 total funds, $148,023 General Fund and $6,099 reappropriated funds.

SALARY SURVEY The OCR uses this line item to pay for annual salary increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests no appropriation. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommends this request.

MERIT PAY The OCR uses this line item to pay for performance-related pay increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104 (1) (c), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $96,160 General Fund for merit pay increases for FY 2016-17. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $64,107 General Fund.

PARENTAL LEAVE The Department of Personnel states that this appropriation is part of a policy that will provide eight weeks of paid leave for qualifying parental events, such as a birth, adoption, or foster placement. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: None. REQUEST: The Department makes no request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is pending the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

OPERATING EXPENSES

12-Mar-2019 139 JUD-fig


This line item provides funding for operating expenses and information technology asset maintenance in both the Denver and El Paso offices, and for reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred by Child's Representative Board members. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $318,514 General Fund, $278,514 General Fund, and $40,000 reappropriated funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $318,514 total funds, $274,325 General Fund, and $44,189 reappropriated funds.

LEASED SPACE This line item currently funds lease payments for OCR’s the Colorado Springs office. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $128,952 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

CASA CONTRACTS This line item provides funding for grants to Colorado CASA, the nonprofit organization of court-appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteers. This funding is used to pay both personnel and operating costs. Prior to FY 2008-09, the General Assembly appropriated $20,000 General Fund annually for this line item; this funding was distributed to Colorado CASA. The Joint Budget Committee initiated increases of $500,000 in FY 2008-09, FY 2013-14, and FY 2018-19. Since FY 2008-09, Colorado CASA has continued to retain a portion of the funding for general operating costs, but the remainder has been allocated to local CASA Programs. Background Information. Court-appointed special advocates (CASA) are trained volunteers who may be appointed to enhance the quality of representation for children31. Pursuant to Section 19-1-202, C.R.S., CASA programs may be established in each judicial district pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the district's chief judge and a community-based CASA program. A CASA volunteer may: conduct an independent investigation regarding the best interests of the child; and determine if an appropriate treatment plan has been created for the child, whether appropriate services are being provided to the child and family, and whether the treatment plan is progressing in a timely manner. A CASA volunteer may also make recommendations consistent with the best interests of the child regarding placement, visitation, and appropriate services. The Judicial Department may contract with a nonprofit entity for the coordination and support of CASA activities in Colorado. 31 Pursuant to Section 19-1-206 (1), C.R.S., a judge or magistrate may appoint a CASA volunteer in any domestic, probate, or truancy matter when a child affected by the matter may require services that a CASA volunteer can provide.

12-Mar-2019 140 JUD-fig


STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-105, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests a continuation level of funding ($1,550,000 General Fund). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

TRAINING The OCR is charged with "ensuring the provision and availability of high-quality, accessible training" for GALs, judges and magistrates who regularly hear matters involving children and families, CASA volunteers, and attorneys who are appointed to serve as a child's legal representative or a child and family investigator. The OCR is also charged with making recommendations to the Chief Justice concerning minimum practice standards for GALs and overseeing the practice of GALs to ensure compliance with all relevant statutes, orders, rules, directives, policies, and procedures. In addition to the individuals noted above, the OCR invites respondent parent counsel, county attorneys and social workers, foster parents, and law enforcement to their training programs. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $78,000 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL This line item pays for contract attorneys appointed by the court to serve as Guardians ad Litem (GALs) and child legal representatives in dependency and neglect, delinquency, truancy, high conflict divorce, alcohol or drug abuse, mental health issues, and probate matters. The OCR is charged with enhancing the provision of GAL services by "establishing fair and realistic state rates by which to compensate state-appointed guardians ad litem, which will take into consideration the caseload limitations place on guardians ad litem and which will be sufficient to attract and retain high-quality, experienced attorneys to serve as guardians ad litem". STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $28,656,617 total funds, $27,214,715 General Fund, and $1,441,902 reappropriated funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request.

MANDATED COSTS

12-Mar-2019 141 JUD-fig


This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". These costs are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and/or the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. For the OCR, these costs include the following:

reimbursement to other entities such as hospitals and county departments of human services for discovery;

expert witnesses;

interpreters - out of court;

transcripts; and

process servers and other miscellaneous expenses. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $60,200 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request.

GRANTS This line item reflects anticipated expenditures from a federal Title IV-E training grant and money transferred from the judicial depart. This line item is included in the Long Bill for informational purposes only and is not intended to limit the OCR's expenditures of these federal funds. While these moneys originate as federal funds, the Title IV-E funds are transferred to the OCR from the Department of Human Services and are thus reflected as reappropriated funds. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR request includes $26,909 reappropriated funds based on the amount anticipated to be available for FY 2018-19. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Department’s informational appropriation request.

12-Mar-2019 142 JUD-fig


(8) OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL Senate Bill 14-203 and H.B. 15-1149 established the Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel (ORPC) as an independent agency within the Judicial Branch, as of January 1, 2016. The ORPC is charged with ensuring the provision and availability of high-quality legal representation for respondent parents involved in dependency and neglect proceedings. All existing and new state paid respondent parent counsel appointments were transferred from the State Court Administrator's Office (SCAO) to the ORPC by July 1, 2016. The ORPC is governed by the nine-member Respondent Parents' Counsel Governing Commission, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court. Commission members serve on a voluntary basis and receive no compensation for their time. The Commission appoints an Executive Director for the Office. The Executive Director’s salary is fixed by the General Assembly through a Long Bill footnote and may not be reduced during his or her five-year term of appointment. The ORPC is an independent agency within the Judicial Branch that employs 10.0 FTE. The ORPC is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, and the associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides free administrative support to the ORPC, including: procurement; fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; payroll and benefits; and a server room. With the exception of a small amount of cash funds from training-related fees and federal grant funding that is transferred from the Department of Human Services, the ORPC is supported by General Fund appropriations.

OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $20,869,276 $20,808,181 $30,000 $31,095 $0 13.0

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) 4,370,171 1,994,431 5,000 2,370,740 0 0.0

TOTAL $25,239,447 $22,802,612 $35,000 $2,401,835 $0 13.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $25,239,447 $22,802,612 $35,000 $2,401,835 $0 13.0

ORPC R1 BA1 Increase in number of and costs per appointment

0 0 0 0 0 0.0


0 0 0 0 0 0.0


0 0 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R4 BA2 Title IV-E legal representation 4,741,480 0 0 4,741,480 0 0.0

ORPC R5 Social work pilot program continuation

318,240 318,240 0 0 0 0.0



ORPC R8 Contractor rate increase 999,670 999,670 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R9 BA3 Operating expenses 14,108 14,108 0 0 0 0.0

ORPC R10 Training 41,000 0 13,000 28,000 0 0.0




TOTAL $31,294,065 $23,901,228 $48,000 $7,344,837 $0 14.0

12-Mar-2019 143 JUD-fig


OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $6,054,618 $1,098,616 $13,000 $4,943,002 $0 1.0


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $31,538,689 $24,347,374 $48,000 $7,143,315 $0 15.0


DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS’ COUNSEL

ORPC R1 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF AND COSTS PER APPOINTMENT REQUEST: The ORPC requested this increase when it submitted its budget request last fall but the supplemental increase in January made a further Long Bill increase unnecessary. .

ORPC R2 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN–ATTORNEYS REQUEST: The ORPC requests $81,043 to increase the salary and benefits of four attorneys on its staff who, it believes, are paid less than similar attorney employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ANALYSIS: Background: The common compensation plan establishes salary ranges at the OADC, the OCR and the ORPC that are based on salary ranges for comparable jobs in the main Judicial Department, the Executive Branch, and the Office of the State Public Defender. These four attorneys are in the First Assistant Legal Counsel job class, a main Judicial job class that has a salary range from $111,576 to $154,536. Three are at or close to the bottom of this range while the fourth has penetrated 20 percent of the way into the range. Based up observation of salaries of other attorneys at the OADC and the ORPC, the ORPC believes its attorneys should receive salary increases that move them up within the range. JBC staff requested information on all the attorneys at the three agencies and examined the relationship between range penetration (the percentage of the way through the salary range for the First Assistant Legal Counsel job class) and years as an attorney. The result was the following graph, which suggests that the ORPC’s lower paid attorneys are paid less because they have less experience. Staff sees only one individual on this graph, an OCR attorney, who is arguably underpaid relative to the dotted line showing salary progress.

12-Mar-2019 144 JUD-fig


JBC staff also looked at attorney salary data from the main judicial department. The initial plan was to compare the OADC, ORPC, and ORPC attorneys with Judicial Department attorneys in the reference “First Assistant Legal Counsel” job class. There was only one individual in the First Assistant Legal Counsel class at judicial, so a comparison was not feasible, but the lack of people in this job class at main Judicial made JBC staff wonder if First Assistant Legal Counsel was a suitable reference class for the OADC, ORPC, and ORPC to use. JBC staff then decided to look at the salaries of all non-judicial-officer attorneys at the Judicial Department. Lacking data on years practicing as an attorney, staff used years since being hired as a proxy for years practicing as an attorney. A search found 18 attorneys who work full time and have been at Judicial at least 10 years. They have been at judicial an average of 16.9 years and their average annual salary is $108,804, which is $3000 below the minimum of the range for the First Assistant Legal Counsel job class. If these 18 attorneys were at OADC, ORPC, or ORPC the above graph suggests they would have an average salary of about $124,000. Thus there was nothing in this comparison to suggest that OADC, ORPC, and ORPC attorneys are under paid. In fact they seem to be well paid relative to non-judicial-officer attorneys at main Judicial. Out of curiosity staff decided to look at the reference job classification for Deputy Directors of the OADC, OCR, and ORPC. The reference job classification is "Clerk of the Supreme Count", an administrative position that does not require a law degree, which makes staff wonder about its appropriateness as a salary reference for OADC, OCR, and ORPC deputy directors, who all have law degrees and need those degrees to perform their jobs. Staff also noted that the real Clerk of the Supreme Court has a salary that is $28,000 less than the average salary of OADC, OCR, and ORPC deputy directors.

ORPC R3 COMMON COMPENSATION PLAN–OTHER STAFF REQUEST: The ORPC requests $55,575 to increase the salary and benefits of four non-attorney staff members who, it believes, are paid less than similar employees elsewhere within the Judicial Branch. In three cases, the Office proposes to change the job classification of the employee and increase the

OCR

OCR

ADC

ADC

ADC

ADC

ORPCORPC

ORPC

ORPC0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Ran

ge p

enet

rati

on

Years practicing as an attorney

Years practicing

12-Mar-2019 145 JUD-fig


salary. In the fourth case, the Office proposes to move the employee further up within the salary range the employee's job classification. In addition the ORPC has submitted a letter from the Chairperson for the Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel, which is appointed by the Chief Justice and has oversight of the ORPC. The letter urges the JBC to "approve establishing a salary range between a District Court Judge and a Court of Appeals Judge for the ORPC Executive Director, Melissa Thompson." The Letter is reproduced in Appendix I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ANALYSIS: These are substantial increases, $11,000 per employee. Staff is also bothered that the ORPC is proposing to change a significant portion of its job classifications so soon after the common compensation plan was established.

ORPC R4 TITLE IV-E LEGAL REPRESENTATION This decision item was discussed in OCR section of this document, which immediately precedes this section.

ORPC R5 SOCIAL WORK PILOT PROGRAM CONTINUATION

REQUEST: The ORPC requests $318,240 General Fund to continue its Social Worker Pilot Program, which has been operating in three judicial districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a one year General Fund appropriation of $318,240 coupled with a request that the ORPC explore the possibility of supporting the pilot with Title IV-E dollars in FY 2021-22. ANALYSIS: Staff does not believe that the pilot program is complete. Background on the program: The Social Worker Pilot Program that has been operating since July 2017 in three judicial districts: the 4th (El Paso and Teller Counties), the 17th (Adams and Broomfield Counties), and the 21st (Mesa County). The program is based on a multidisciplinary approach to parent representation and is designed to improve outcomes for parents and children involved in dependency and neglect proceedings. The ORPC contracts with a small number of social workers in the participating judicial districts. These social workers are referred at the onset of select cases and conduct an independent evaluation and assessment to determine what services are necessary for the parent and child to achieve reunification. This assessment helps to inform the ORPC attorney’s advocacy during court hearings and during meetings with the County Department of Human Services, so that a treatment plan is developed that is individually tailored, manageable, and appropriate for the parent and child.

The pilot program focuses only on “expedited permanency planning” (EPP) cases, which involve children who are under the age of six. Because of their youth, such children are particularly

12-Mar-2019 146 JUD-fig


vulnerable. These children must be placed in a permanent home within 12 months of removal. In its request, the ORPC cited research in New York showing that this model of representation produced outcomes that are substantially better that the traditional model of attorney representation. The New York program also saved the state money by promoting safe reunification with parents and reducing a child's length of stay in foster care.

Because of small sample sizes as well as incomplete data for some years and locations, a study of the program’s effectiveness is best described at this time as promising but inconclusive. It is worthy of continuation until more data is gathered and analyzed.

ORPC R6 SOCIAL WORK COORDINATOR REQUEST: The ORPC requests 1.0 FTE and $130,826 General Fund to create the position of Social Worker Outreach Coordinator. The agency says that the position will promote the ORPC’s legislative mandate to improve the quality of appointed legal representation for parents in dependency and neglect proceedings by providing respondent parent attorneys across Colorado with access to social work resources, high quality training, and pilot programs that enhance representation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. ANALYSIS: The Social Worker Outreach Coordinator who is the subject of this request will be paid a salary of $95,790 annually, which is the midpoint of the reference range for Judicial’s Court Programs Analyst 3. JBC staff questions why the reference job classification for a Social Work Coordinator is a Court Programs Analyst 3, which requires “five years of management analysis experience in statistical or economic analysis.” The Office of the State Public Defender in its Request 3 is also expanding the use of social workers. It plans to hire 1.0 supervising licensed social worker at an annual salary of $57,262 and 8 licensed social workers at a salary of $51,168. This is the description of the supervising social worker’s duties from the OSPD request: “The addition of a Supervising Social Worker provides OSPD the capacity to develop state-wide policies and procedures that govern the work undertaken by the social work team and the ability to design and deliver a comprehensive training program to ensure uniformity in social worker practices across regional offices. The supervisor will also participate in providing guidance in addressing issues such as recognizing and answering ethical questions, and serve as a secondary source to triage cases to assist the line social workers in developing appropriate case plans. Further, the supervisor will develop and deliver a protocol of supervision to ensure that social worker employees are able to comply with the licensing requirements set forth by the Division of Regulatory Agencies and the Colorado Board of Social Work Examiners which require that social workers at the licensed social worker level of licensure only perform clinical work under the clinical supervision of a Licensed Clinical Social Worker.”

12-Mar-2019 147 JUD-fig

https://www.its.courts.state.co.us/mosaic/careersJobDescriptionDetail?selJob=2467

https://www.its.courts.state.co.us/mosaic/careersJobDescriptionDetail?selJob=2467


Staff cannot recommend a Social Worker Outreach Coordinator for the ORPC at a salary of $95,790 when the OSPD is hiring a supervising licensed social worker with statewide responsibilities at an annual salary of $57,262.

ORPC R7 CARRIE ANN LUCAS FELLOWSHIP REQUEST: The ORPC requests 1.0 FTE and $173,522 General Fund to create the Carrie Ann Lucas Fellowship, named after Carrie Ann Lucas, an advocate for disabled parents who worked for the ORPC, was herself disabled, and died last February. The Carrie Ann Lucas Fellow will be a permanent staff attorney for the ORPC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request but recommends that it be funded with an appropriation of Title IV-E dollars. Staff believes that such an appropriation is consistent with the interpretation by the Director of the ORPC of how Title IV-E reimbursement dollars can be spent. ANALYSIS: The following is a repetition of information that appeared in the staff briefing document last fall. Though Ms. Lucas had planned to go into ministry, she changed course and went to law school after struggling to adopt her disabled niece, a 9-year-old then in foster care. Running into resistance due to discrimination based on her own disability, Ms. Lucas successfully fought for adoption with the help of a court-appointed special advocate. The ORPC observes that parents with disabilities in child welfare cases lose their parental rights at higher rates than non-disabled parents32 and children with disabilities become legal orphans at higher rates than non-disabled children.33 In addition to her work for the ORPC, Ms. Lucas was a leader in the passage of H.B. 18-1104 (Family Preservation For Parents With Disability), under which a parent's disability cannot be used as a basis for

denying or restricting temporary custody, foster care, guardianship, or participation in adoption, or

restricting the parent's responsibility in domestic relations or dependency or neglect proceedings, unless a detrimental impact on the child can be shown. The burden of proof in these cases is on the party that alleges the disability will have a detrimental effect on the child.

As a result of losing Ms. Lucas, the ORPC has had to refer requests for case consultations with complex disability issues to a national Americans with Disability Act (ADA) expert who does not reside in the state. To honor Ms. Lucas’ memory and to ensure that her work continues, the ORPC requests funding for the creation of the Carrie Ann Lucas Fellowship, which will be filled by the Carrie Ann Lucas

32 National Council on Disability, Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children (September 27, 2012), p. 77, https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Parenting_508_0.pdf . 33 Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, Univ. of Minnesota, The Intersection of Child Welfare and Disability: Focus on Children (Spring 2013), p. 8, https://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Spring2013_360_web-FINAL.pdf.

12-Mar-2019 148 JUD-fig

http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb18-1104

https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Parenting_508_0.pdf

https://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Spring2013_360_web-FINAL.pdf


Fellow, who will be selected by the ORPC. This Fellow will be a specialist in legal matters related to disabled parents and will

Write and conduct research on related topics,

Consult with attorneys who represent parents with disabilities or have children with disabilities,

Help the ORPC recruit and train more attorneys to engage in parent representation, and

Create and maintain a Carrie Ann Lucas portal on the ORPC website to house information about Ms. Lucas and her work as well as resources for parents with disabilities and those who represent them.

The Carrie Ann Lucas Fellow will be a permanent state employee who receives state benefits. The Fellow will be an attorney whose salary falls in the class range for ORPC staff attorneys. The ORPC has requested an appropriation sufficient to pay the Fellow a salary at the midpoint of the staff-attorney range ($133,056) so it can hire an experienced attorney.

ORPC R8 CONTRACTOR RATE INCREASE This request is presented at the beginning of the Decision Items for the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel.

ORPC R9 OPERATING EXPENSES REQUEST: The ORPC requests $14,108 General Fund for increased operating expenses:

Renewal at an increased price of the RTD EcoPasses that it provides to its employees, and

Software licenses for Westlaw Drafting Assistant (used by contact attorneys), SPSS (for statistical analysis), DocuSign (for electronic signing of documents), SkillShare (for training ORPC staff), and Survey Monkey (for conducting internet surveys of ORPC contractors).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

ORPC R10 TRAINING REQUEST: The ORPC requests that its appropriation for training be increased by $41,000 total funds, comprised of $13,000 General Fund and $28,000 cash funds. The General Fund increase is to offset the recent loss of grant funds and to pay for the training of an increasing numbers of attorneys and other professionals. The cash fund increase will allow the Office to expend the additional training fees it anticipates collecting. The Office anticipates that it will submit a supplemental request to increase cash fund spending authority in FY 2019-20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request, but that the General Fund portion be funded with Title IV-E dollars.

12-Mar-2019 149 JUD-fig


ORPC (UNNUMBERED REQUEST) SALARY RANGE FOR ORPC EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR REQUEST: The nine member governing commission of the ORPC requests that the JBC establish "a salary range between a District Court Judge and an [Associate] Court of Appeals Judge for the ORPC Executive Director." The lower end of this range is the current salary of the ORPC Executive Director. The upper end is the current salary of the State Public Defender. The apparent intent is to allow the Commission to set the Director’s salary within this range and use that ability to “incentivize superb work.” RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the JBC continue to use a Long Bill footnote to establish the Executive Director’s salary, but may in the future want to consider bonuses. ANALYSIS: The salary of the Executive Director is established annually in a Long Bill footnote that first appeared in the FY 1999-00 Long Bill. Sections 13-30-103 and 104, C.R.S., established judicial salaries for various fiscal years during the 1990s [through H.B. 98-1238]. These provisions state that any salary increases above those set forth in statute "shall be determined by the general assembly as set forth in the annual general appropriations bill." The footnote also establishes the salaries for the individuals who head four of the independent judicial agencies by tying them to specific judicial salaries. The salary range suggested by the Commission is a relatively small $7,673 or about 4.7 percent relative to salary. While this range can provide a meaningful one time salary boost, it would not allow for a continuing series of boosts. An annual bonus of up to $7,673 could be used as an alternative that would provide a continuing incentive. A bonus is an interesting alternative that the Committee may want to explore in the future.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL

PERSONAL SERVICES This line item provides funding to support a central administrative office in Denver. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-92-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The ORPC requests $1,911,049 General Fund and 15.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $1,721,458 total funds, $1,581,687 General Fund, $139,771 reappropriated funds, and 14.0 FTE.

OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $1,485,089 $1,485,089 $0 $0 $0 13.0

12-Mar-2019 150 JUD-fig


OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSEL, PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

H.B. 20-1249 (Supplemental) $36,245 $36,245 $0 $0 $0 0.0

TOTAL $1,521,334 $1,521,334 $0 $0 $0 13.0







0 0 0 0 0 0.0


0 0 0 0 0 0.0


TOTAL $1,721,458 $1,581,687 $0 $139,771 $0 14.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) $200,124 $60,353 $0 $139,771 $0 1.0




HEALTH, LIFE, AND DENTAL This line item provides funding for the employer's share of the cost of group benefit plans providing health, life, and dental insurance for ORPC staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (9), C.R.S. REQUEST: The request includes $191,026 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $178,354 total funds, $165,682 General Fund, and $12,672 reappropriated funds.

SHORT-TERM DISABILITY This line item provides funding for the employer's share of OCR employees' short-term disability insurance premiums. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-611, C.R.S., and defined in Section 24-50-603 (13), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $2,936 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $2,650 total funds, $2,414 General Fund, and $236 reappropriated funds.

12-Mar-2019 151 JUD-fig


S.B. 04-257 AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (AED) Pursuant to S.B. 04-257, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) for OCR staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $85,798 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $76,545 total funds, $70,325 General Fund, and $6,220 reappropriated funds.

S.B. 06-235 SUPPLEMENTAL AMORTIZATION EQUALIZATION DISBURSEMENT (SAED) Pursuant to S.B. 06-235, this line item provides additional funding to increase the state contribution for PERA for OCR staff. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-51-411, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $85,798 General Fund based on applying a rate of 5.0 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $76,545 total funds, $70,325 General Fund, and $6,220 reappropriated funds.

SALARY SURVEY The OCR uses this line item to pay for annual salary increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104, C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $45,501 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommends $30,335 General Fund.

MERIT PAY The OCR uses this line item to pay for performance-related pay increases. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Section 24-50-104 (1) (c), C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests no merit pay. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends no merit pay.

12-Mar-2019 152 JUD-fig


PARENTAL LEAVE The Department of Personnel states that this appropriation is part of a policy that will provide eight weeks of paid leave for qualifying parental events, such as a birth, adoption, or foster placement. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: None. REQUEST: The Department makes no request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is pending the Committee’s common policy for this line item.

OPERATING EXPENSES This line item provides funding for operating expenses and information technology asset maintenance in both the Denver and El Paso offices, and for reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred by Child's Representative Board members. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-91-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCR requests $142,256 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $133,853 total funds, $125,450 General Fund, and $8,403 reappropriated funds.

LEGAL SERVICES Legal services were formerly presented separately for the ORPC, but are now combined with legal services for other agencies and appropriated in the main Judicial portion of this document.

TITLE IV-E LEGAL REPRESENTATION This line item provides spending authority for reappropriated funds received from the Title IV-E cash fund in the Department of Human Services. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 26-2-102.5, C.R.S. REQUEST: The Department Requests $7,112,220 reappropriated funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request.

TRAINING

12-Mar-2019 153 JUD-fig


This line item provides funding for the ORPC to offer training opportunities for contract attorneys and other individuals as appropriate to ensure the provision and availability of high-quality legal representation for parents involved in dependency and neglect proceedings. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-92-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The request includes $106,000 total funds, including $58,000 General Fund and $48,000 cash funds from training fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends $106,000 total funds, $30,000 General Fund, $48,000 cash funds, and $28,000 reappropriated funds.

COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL This line item provides funding for contract attorneys who are appointed to represent respondent parents. Payments cover flat payments or hourly rates, as well as reimbursement for costs such as mileage, copying, postage, and travel expenses. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-92-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The Office requests $20,225,726 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

MANDATED COSTS This is one of several line item appropriations for "mandated costs". These costs are associated with activities, events, and services that accompany court cases that are required in statute and/or the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and to ensure the right to legal representation. For the ORPC, these costs are anticipated to include the following:

expert witnesses and expert witness travel reimbursement;

transcripts; and

interpreters - out of court. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-92-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The ORPC requests $1,599,284 General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request.

GRANTS This is a new line item that reflects federal grant funds that the ORPC receives from the Department of Human Services. Similar to the Title IV-E funds that are reflected in the Office of the Child’s Representative budget, this amount includes an “I” notation indicating that it is not an appropriation and is reflected for informational purposes only.

12-Mar-2019 154 JUD-fig


STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-92-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The ORPC estimates that it will spend $31,095 grant funds next year, the same as the prior year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Department’s informational appropriation request.

12-Mar-2019 155 JUD-fig


(9) OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN The Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman was created in 2010 to serve as an independent and neutral organization to investigate complaints and grievances about child protection services, make recommendations about system improvements, and serve as a resource for persons involved in the child welfare system. The Office operated as a non-profit organization under contract with the Department of Human Services. Senate Bill 15-204 established the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman (OCPO) in the Judicial Department as an independent agency, and it established the Child Protection Ombudsman Board to oversee personnel decisions, operating policies and procedures, and budget. The OCPO employs 8.0 FTE, and is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center. The associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides free administrative support to the OCPO, including: accounting; accounts payable; preparation of budget schedules and decision items; expenditure monitoring; fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; payroll and benefits; and a server room. The OCPO is supported entirely by General Fund appropriations.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $990,918 $990,918 $0 $0 $0 8.0

TOTAL $990,918 $990,918 $0 $0 $0 8.0


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $990,918 $990,918 $0 $0 $0 8.0



42,000 42,000 0 0 0 0.0



TOTAL $1,100,015 $1,100,015 $0 $0 $0 8.0





($7,945) ($7,945) $0 $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN REQUEST: OCPO R1 SALARY INCREASES: The OCPO requests $35,749 General Fund to increase the salaries of six of the eight people it employs. With these increases, the OCPO hopes to improve recruitment and retention of employees. Though the OCPO is not part of the common compensation plan of

12-Mar-2019 156 JUD-fig


the OADC, OCR, and ORPC, it sets salaries in a similar manner, identifying Judicial Department job classifications that are appropriate for its own employees and paying salaries within the Judicial Department range for that classification. The OCPO requests funding to move three of its employees up within the salary range for their existing job classification and, recognizing that the responsibilities and requirements of three other employees have grown,34 requests funding to pay those employees higher salaries corresponding to Judicial Department job classifications with greater responsibility and higher salary ranges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request, having reviewed these increases with an HR specialist. The increases are justifiable and relatively modest in size, averaging $5,000 per person. OCPO R2 EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE WITH COMMUNICATION: The OCPO requests $42,000 General Fund on an ongoing basis to engage a local communications firm that will help it connect with outside stakeholders and citizens and help make them aware of the CPO’s services, its findings, and the guidance it provides. The Agency points to the Legislature’s stated intent that it provide those involved in the State’s child-protection system with "a well-publicized, easily accessible, and transparent grievance process for voicing their concerns about the child protection system as well as being responsible for responding to those concerns in a timely and appropriate manner." (Section 19-3.3-101 (1)(e), C.R.S.) It also points to its statutory responsibilities “to help educate the public concerning child maltreatment and the role of the community in strengthening families and keeping children safe,” and “to promote best practices and effective programs relating to a publicly funded child protection system” (Section 19-3.3-101 (2)(c) and (d), C.R.S.). The communications firm that the OCPO intends to engage has developed a strategic plan that will promote the Office to stakeholders and citizens in a low cost but effective fashion that takes advantage of social media, videos, e-newsletters and a training toolkit for professionals and mandatory reports, and other ideas. The OCPO notes that this plan costs about a third as much as a full-time public relations employee. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this request, believing that the citizens of Colorado would be better served if the Office services and its findings were better known.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN

PROGRAM COSTS This is a consolidated line item that includes funding for OCPO operations, including personal services, employee benefits, and operating expenses. It does not include legal expenses. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 19-3.3-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The OCPO requests $1,092,070 General Fund and 8.0 FTE.

34 The Chief Analyst, the Director of Administrative Services, and the Child Protection Systems Analyst for the Division of Youth Services.

12-Mar-2019 157 JUD-fig


RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN, PROGRAM COSTS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $990,918 $990,918 $0 $0 $0 8.0

TOTAL $990,918 $990,918 $0 $0 $0 8.0





42,000 42,000 0 0 0 0.0



TOTAL $1,100,015 $1,100,015 $0 $0 $0 8.0





($7,945) ($7,945) $0 $0 $0 0.0

Because this is a program line item, the Office can decide how to allocate its appropriation.

LEGAL SERVICES Legal services were formerly presented separately for the OCPO, but are now combined with legal services for other agencies and appropriated in the main Judicial portion of this document.

12-Mar-2019 158 JUD-fig


(10) INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION The Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) is a five-member body established by a constitutional amendment that voters approved in 200635. The IEC gives advice and guidance on ethics-related matters arising under the Colorado Constitution and any other standards of conduct or reporting requirements provided by law concerning public officers, members of the General Assembly, local government officials, or government employees. The IEC hears complaints, issues findings, assesses penalties and sanctions where appropriate, and issues advisory opinions. The members of the IEC are appointed by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the IEC itself. Commission members serve without compensation but are reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred. The IEC is an independent agency within the Judicial Branch with one employee. It is located in the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, and the associated lease payment is covered through a single line item appropriation in the Courts Administration section of the Judicial Branch budget. The Office of the State Court Administrator provides free administrative support to the IEC, including: accounting; accounts payable; preparation of budget schedules and decision items; expenditure monitoring; procurement; fiscal year-end transfers; workers’ compensation and risk management; payroll and benefits; recruitment; and information technology support (e-mail, desktop support, and server room). The IEC is supported entirely by General Fund appropriations.

INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $204,709 $204,709 $0 $0 $0 1.0

TOTAL $204,709 $204,709 $0 $0 $0 1.0





TOTAL $217,145 $217,145 $0 $0 $0 1.0



FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $211,534 $211,534 $0 $0 $0 1.0


($5,611) ($5,611) $0 $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION (NONE) None.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION

35 See Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution and Section 24-18.5-101, C.R.S.

12-Mar-2019 159 JUD-fig


PROGRAM COSTS This is a consolidated line item that includes funding for the 1.0 FTE that supports the Commission, including personal services, employee benefits, and operating expenses. Legal expenses are appropriated separately. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Article XXIX of the State Constitution and Section 24-18.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. REQUEST: The IEC requests a total of $211,534 General Fund and 1.0 FTE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request.

INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION, PROGRAM COSTS

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $204,709 $204,709 $0 $0 $0 1.0

TOTAL $204,709 $204,709 $0 $0 $0 1.0





TOTAL $217,145 $217,145 $0 $0 $0 1.0



FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $211,534 $211,534 $0 $0 $0 1.0


($5,611) ($5,611) $0 $0 $0 0.0

LEGAL SERVICES Legal services were formerly presented separately for the IEC, but are now combined with legal services for other agencies and appropriated in the main Judicial portion of this document.

12-Mar-2019 160 JUD-fig


(11) OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP The Office of Public Guardianship (OPG), which is overseen by the Public Guardianship Commission, was created by H.B. 17-1087 and subsequently modified by H.B. 19-1045. The provisions governing the program, which are contained in Article 94 or Title 13, C.R.S., establish a pilot program in Denver to provide legal guardianship services for indigent and incapacitated adults who:

Have no responsible family members or friends who are available and appropriate to serve as a guardian;

Lack adequate resources to compensate a private guardian and pay the costs and fees associated with an appointment proceeding; and

Are not subject to a petition for appointment of a guardian filed by a county adult protective services unit or otherwise authorized by law.

The Office is funded by an approximately 50-50 mixture of General Fund and cash funds, with the cash funds deriving from increased probate fees that were imposed by H.B. 19-1045. The Office is now fully staffed; its staff assistant and four public guardians have been attending training since the end of January. The OPG’s case management system and web site are anticipated to be active in March and the Office expects to begin accepting clients sometime in March. Current statute requires the pilot program to be evaluated by the General Assembly during the 2023 session based in part on a detailed report that the Office must submit by January 1, 2023. At that time the General Assembly will decide whether the pilot should be continued, discontinued, or expanded. If the General Assembly decides not to renew the OPG in 2023, the wind-down process may be lengthy. Based on the Office’s projected caseload, the OPG will have 80 wards at that time and those wards cannot be abandon; the OPG will need to continue operating until substitute guardians can be found, a process that could take months. The program will continue to need revenue and appropriations during the wind-down period.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP

TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0


TOTAL $835,386 $427,000 $408,386 $0 $0 4.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $835,386 $427,000 $408,386 $0 $0 4.5


0 (263,411) 263,411 0 0 0.0

Centrally appropriated line items 122,554 0 122,554 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation (161,576) (163,589) 2,013 0 0 1.5

TOTAL $796,364 $0 $796,364 $0 $0 6.0

12-Mar-2019 161 JUD-fig



TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($39,022) ($427,000) $387,978 $0 $0 1.5


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $796,364 $314,404 $481,960 $0 $0 6.0


$0 $314,404 ($314,404) $0 $0 0.0

DECISION ITEMS – OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP

RECOMMENDED JBC BILL FOR OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP REQUEST: During its hearing, the Office of Public Guardianship requested that the JBC carry a bill to fix date problems in the OPG’s portion of statute. The staff recommendation addresses date problems and other issues. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that JBC run a bill to fix problems associated with the OPG provisions in statute. The bill would fix date problems, eliminate an unintended probate fee increase, and add termination provisions, which would become operational if the General Assembly decides not to renew the program in 2023. BACKGROUND: The original Office of Public Guardianship legislation (H.B. 17-1087) envisioned that the pilot program would begin operating in the summer of 2017, financed entirely by gifts, grants, and donations. However, a lack of funding made it impossible to operate. House Bill 19-1045 narrowed the scope of the pilot, delayed until 2023 the date on which the pilot must report results to the General Assembly, delayed until 2023 the General Assembly’s decision to continue, discontinue, or expand the program, and financed the program with a combination of General Fund and cash funds derived from increased fees paid on probate cases that are filed with the courts. The OPG is now beginning operations, more than two years later than originally intended. FIX TWO INCORRECT DATES: H.B. 19-1045 adjusted most of the OPG dates in statute to take account of the postponed timeline, however, the bill failed to modify two dates that now need to be changed. The first date is in Section 13-94-102 (2)(a)(II)(b), C.R.S., which refers to the General Assembly’s scheduled renewal decision in 2021, rather than 2023. The second date is in Section 13-94-108 (2), which transfers “remaining” money in the OPG cash fund to the General Fund on June 30, 2021, almost two years before the General Assembly makes its renewal decision under the postponed timeline. Both of these dates need to be moved back. FIX UNINTENDED PROBATE FEE INCREASES: The recommended bill would also eliminate an probate-fee increases in H.B. 19-1045. The fee in question is called a jury demand fee; it is paid by a litigant who requests a jury in a civil suit. House Bill 19-1045 increased the jury demand fee for all civil cases by $41 and directed the additional revenue to the OPG Cash Fund. Staff assumes that this was a mistake, i.e. that the plan was to only fees directly related to probate. As a result of the jury demand fee, more revenue is coming into the OPG Cash Fund than is needed. Staff recommends immediate elimination of the entire $41 fee increase, including the increase for probate cases. It

12-Mar-2019 162 JUD-fig


turns out that there have only been three requests for juries in probate cases this year, so the amount of revenue that should come from this source is very small. ADD A HARD TERMINATION DATE: As noted earlier, if the General Assembly decides not to renew the OPG during the 2023 session (a decision that could happen late in that session), the OPG will need to continue operating until substitute guardians can be found for its wards, a process that could take months or longer. During the wind-down period the program will need appropriations and revenue. Staff recommends that statute be amended to terminate the program on June 30, 2024. The Long Bill enacted during the 2023 session would fund the program at its FY 2022-23 level. If the General Assembly decides to continue or expand the program, the resulting “renewal” bill would eliminate or extend the termination date. If the program is expanded, the renewal bill would provide additional funding for FY 2023-24 beyond the funding in the FY 2023-24 Long Bill. If the program is continued at the same level, the appropriation in the FY 2023-24 Long Bill would be sufficient to fund operations. If the program is discontinued, the funding in the FY 2023-24 Long Bill would cover costs during the wind-down period and a supplemental bill during 2023 session would reduce or eliminate FY 2023-24 funding in response to declining costs during the wind-down period. This is similar to the sunset review process in Section 24-34-104, C.R.S. CREATE A REMINDER TO ELIMINATE FEES IF THE OPG IS DISCONTINUED: If the General Assembly decides not to renew the OPG, the increased probate fees that H.B. 19-1045 placed in statute to finance the program should be eliminated. While automatic repealers could be inserted into statute to automatically eliminate the fees on June 30, 2024 (the proposed date when the OPG Cash Fund terminates), staff recommends that the JBC plan to carry another bill during the 2024 session to repeal the fees if the OPG is terminated. This simplifies continuation of the fees if the OPG is not terminated. As a reminder to the Committee, staff recommends that the OPG be required to notify the JBC of the need to eliminate the increased fees if the General Assembly decides to terminate the program.

STAFF INITIATED: NO GF FOR OPG IN FY 2020-21 REQUEST: This is a staff-initiated recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 100 percent cash funds appropriation from the OPG Cash Fund to the OPG for FY 2020-21. ANALYSIS: The unexpected revenue that the OPG cash fund is receiving as a result of the jury-demand-fee error is sufficient to cover the OPG’s FY 2020-21 General Fund appropriation.

LINE ITEM DETAIL – OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP

PROGRAM COSTS This is a consolidated line item that includes all funding for the Office of Public Guardianship, including personal services, employee benefits, legal, and operating expenses.

12-Mar-2019 163 JUD-fig


STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 13-94-101, C.R.S., and following sections. REQUEST: The Office requests an appropriation of $796,364 total funds and 6.0 FTE, comprised of 314,404 General Fund and 481,960 cash funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the same total funds appropriation of $796,364 and 6.0 FTE, but recommends that it be entirely paid from the Office of Public Guardianship Cash Fund.


TOTAL

FUNDS GENERAL

FUND CASH


FUNDS FEDERAL

FUNDS

FTE


S.B. 19-207 (Long Bill) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0


TOTAL $835,386 $427,000 $408,386 $0 $0 4.5


FY 2019-20 Appropriation $835,386 $427,000 $408,386 $0 $0 4.5


0 (263,411) 263,411 0 0 0.0

Centrally appropriated line items 122,554 0 122,554 0 0 0.0

Annualize prior legislation (161,576) (163,589) 2,013 0 0 1.5

TOTAL $796,364 $0 $796,364 $0 $0 6.0

INCREASE/(DECREASE) ($39,022) ($427,000) $387,978 $0 $0 1.5


FY 2020-21 EXECUTIVE REQUEST $796,364 $314,404 $481,960 $0 $0 6.0


$0 $314,404 ($314,404) $0 $0 0.0

12-Mar-2019 164 JUD-fig


LONG BILL FOOTNOTES AND

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

LONG BILL FOOTNOTES Staff recommends CONTINUING and CONTINUING AND MODIFYING the following footnotes: 54 Judicial Department, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Appellate Court Programs; Trial

Courts, Trial Court Programs; Office of the State Public Defender, Personal Services; Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, Personal Services; Office of the Child's Representative, Personal Services; Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel, Personal Services -- In accordance with Section 13-30-104 (3), C.R.S., funding is provided for judicial compensation, as follows: FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Salary Increase Salary Chief Justice, Supreme Court $192,256 $5,768 $198,024 Associate Justice, Supreme Court 188,151 5,645 193,796 Chief Judge, Court of Appeals 184,837 5,545 190,382 Associate Judge, Court of Appeals 180,697 5,421 186,118 District Court Judge, Denver Juvenile Court Judge, and Denver Probate Court Judge 173,248 5,197 178,445 County Court Judge 165,795 4,974 170,769

Funding is also provided in the Long Bill to maintain the salary of the State Public Defender at the level of an associate judge of the Court of Appeals and to maintain the salaries of the Alternate Defense Counsel, the Executive Director of the Office of the Child's Representative, and the Executive Director of the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel at the level of a district court judge.

COMMENT: This footnote first appeared in the FY 1999-00 Long Bill. Sections 13-30-103 and 104, C.R.S., established judicial salaries for various fiscal years during the 1990s [through H.B. 98-1238]. These provisions state that any salary increases above those set forth in statute "shall be determined by the general assembly as set forth in the annual general appropriations bill." The General Assembly annually establishes judicial salaries through this footnote in the Long Bill. The footnote also establishes the salaries for the individuals who head four of the independent judicial agencies by tying them to specific judicial salaries. Pursuant to S.B. 15-288, the salaries listed in statute for certain state officials and state legislators are benchmarked to certain judicial officers' salaries beginning in January 2019, so this increase will raise salaries for these state officials the next time there is an election for their office. The FY 2019-20 salary increases in the above footnote table equal 3.0 percent, which is the salary increase approved by the JBC. Staff requests permission to adjust the footnote if the

12-Mar-2019 165 JUD-fig


Committee alters the salary survey decisions that it made in January. As judicial officers do not receive “merit” pay, staff recommends increasing judicial officer salaries by the sum of any percent increases approved by the Committee for Salary Survey and Merit Pay.

55 Judicial Department, Probation and Related Services, Offender Treatment and Services -- It is the General Assembly’s intent that $624,877 of the General Fund appropriation for Offender Treatment and Services be used to provide treatment and services for offenders participating in veterans treatment courts, including peer mentoring services. COMMENT: This footnote identifies the amount of funding within the Offender Treatment and Services line item appropriation that is intended to support treatment and services for offenders participating in veterans treatment courts. The Department has requested continuation of the full $624,877 for FY 2019-20.

56 Judicial Department, Probation and Related Services, Correctional Treatment Cash Fund

Expenditures -- This appropriation provides includes the following transfers: $3,551,498 $3,781,498 to the Department of Corrections, $10,697,223 $10,697,223 to the Department of Human Services, $5,419,635 $5,566,101 to the Department of Public Safety, $2,896,891 to the Offender Treatment and Services line item in the Probation Division, and $169,000 to the District Attorney Adult Pretrial Diversion Programs line in the Centrally Administered Program Section of the Courts Administration Division.

COMMENT: It is challenging to follow the flow of Correctional Treatment Cash Funds in the Long Bill and this footnote makes it easier to do so. Staff requests permission to adjust the footnote to reflect yet-to-be-made Committee decisions.

57 Judicial Department, Office of the State Public Defender -- In addition to the transfer

authority provided in Section 24-75-108 (5), C.R.S., up to 2.5 percent of the total Office of the State Public Defender appropriation may be transferred between line items in the Office of the State Public Defender. COMMENT: This is the first of four footnotes that authorize the independent agencies to transfer a limited amount of funding among their own line item appropriations, over and above transfers that are statutorily authorized. Section 24-75-108 (5), C.R.S., allows the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court to authorize transfers between items of appropriation made to the Judicial Branch, subject to certain limitations. One of these limitations is expressed in Section 24-75-110, C.R.S., which limits the total amount of over expenditures and moneys transferred within the Judicial Branch to $1.0 million per fiscal year. This footnote provides the OSPD with the authority to transfer up to 2.5 percent of its total annual appropriation between line items.

58 Judicial Department, Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel -- In addition to the transfer authority provided in Section 24-75-108 (5), C.R.S., up to 2.5 percent of the total Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel appropriation may be transferred between line items in the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel. COMMENT: This footnote provides the OADC with the authority to transfer up to 2.5 percent of its total annual appropriation between line items.

12-Mar-2019 166 JUD-fig


59 Judicial Department, Office of the Child's Representative -- In addition to the transfer

authority provided in Section 24-75-108 (5), C.R.S., up to 2.5 percent of the total Office of the Child's Representative's appropriation may be transferred between line items in the Office of the Child's Representative. COMMENT: This footnote provides the OCR with the authority to transfer up to 2.5 percent of its total annual appropriation between line items.

61 Judicial Department, Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel -- In addition to the transfer authority provided in Section 24-75-108 (5), C.R.S., up to 2.5 percent of the total Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel's appropriation may be transferred between line items in the Office of the Respondent Parents’ Counsel. COMMENT: This footnote provides the Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel (ORPC) with the authority to transfer up to 2.5 percent of its total annual appropriation between line items.

Staff recommends DISCONTINUING the following footnotes: 54a Judicial Department, Trial Courts, District Attorney Mandated Costs -- It is the General

Assembly's intent that $137,920 of the General Fund appropriation for District Attorney Mandated Costs be used only to reimburse mandated costs associated with two cases: 19CR451 and 19CR467. It the General Assembly's intent that unexpended funds revert to the General Fund.

COMMENT: This footnote attached to a one-time supplemental appropriation of $137,920 General Fund to the Colorado District Attorneys Council that was approved in January. This footnote will continue in effect until the end of FY 2019-20. Because this was a one-time appropriation, the footnote is no longer needed.

60 Judicial Department, Office of the Child's Representative, CASA Contracts -- It is the

General Assembly's intent that $30,000 of this appropriation be allocated to local CASA programs to cover the costs of conducting criminal history record checks for CASA volunteers. If a local CASA program's share of this amount exceeds the amount incurred for criminal history record checks, it is the General Assembly's intent that the remainder be used to support other local CASA program activities. COMMENT: This footnote accompanied and explained a $30,000 increase of the CASA appropriation that was contained in the FY 2017-18 Long Bill (as compared to the CASA appropriation in the FY 2016-17 Long Bill). Staff believes that the footnote is no longer necessary. Whether or not this footnote is present, the entire CASA appropriation, including this $30,000, will be allocated to Colorado CASA and unspent money will not have to be returned. CASA is a responsible steward of the public money it receives and staff is confident that it will be wisely spent. If local CASA programs believe that there are better uses for this $30,000, staff would defer to their judgement and not constrain them with this footnote.

12-Mar-2019 167 JUD-fig


A CASA lobbyist sent the following message out to the CASA network and received no negative feedback: “I wanted you to be aware that an analyst with the Joint Budget Committee has reached out regarding a footnote on the CASA line item in the state’s budget. Specifically, he would like to remove the footnote for the purpose of making things a bit cleaner in the budget. For anyone who isn’t familiar, footnotes in our state budget provide additional clarity around the legislature’s intent as to how the money appropriated should be spent. This footnote is regarding the $30,000 we lobbied to increase to cover the cost of background checks for our volunteers; we worked on this back in 2015. Our lobbyist, Jon Labadie, has spoken with the JBC analyst overseeing our line item and the removal of this footnote will have no impact on the amount of money allocated or how it is allocated; this will be left up to the allocation committee as it is now.”

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION Staff recommends CONTINUING and CONTINUING AND MODIFYING the following request for information: Requests Applicable to Multiple Departments, Including Judicial Branch 4 Department of Corrections; Department of Human Services; Judicial Department;

Department of Public Safety; and Department of Transportation -- State agencies involved in multi-agency programs requiring separate appropriations to each agency are requested to designate one lead agency to be responsible for submitting a comprehensive annual budget request for such programs to the Joint Budget Committee, including prior year, request year, and three year forecasts for revenues into the fund and expenditures from the fund by agency. The requests should be sustainable for the length of the forecast based on anticipated revenues. Each agency is still requested to submit its portion of such request with its own budget document. This applies to requests for appropriation from: the Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund, the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund, the Offender Identification Fund, the Persistent Drunk Driver Cash Fund, and the Sex Offender Surcharge Fund, among other programs. COMMENT: This request is intended to ensure that state agencies coordinate requests that draw on the same cash fund. It is also intended to ensure that for each fund listed, one department includes a comprehensive annual budget request for that fund.

Requests Applicable to Judicial Branch Only 1 Judicial Department, Office of the State Public Defender – The State Public Defender is

requested to provide by November 1, 2019 2020, a report concerning the Appellate Division's progress in reducing its case backlog, including the following data for FY 2018-19 2019-20: the number of new cases; the number of opening briefs filed by the Office of the State Public Defender; the number of cases resolved in other ways; the number of cases closed; and the number of cases awaiting an opening brief as of June 30, 2019 2020.

12-Mar-2019 168 JUD-fig


COMMENT: This request, in combination with a companion request for the Department of Law’s Appellate Unit, allows the Committee to monitor and respond to unexpected growth of the inter-related backlogs of appellate cases at the two agencies.

2 Judicial Department, Probation and Related Services – The State Court Administrator’s

Office is requested to provide by November 1 of each year a report on pre-release rates of recidivism and unsuccessful terminations and post-release recidivism rates among offenders in all segments of the probation population, including the following: adult and juvenile intensive supervision; adult and juvenile minimum, medium, and maximum supervision; and the female offender program. The Office is requested to include information about the disposition of pre-release failures and post-release recidivists, including how many offenders are incarcerated (in different kinds of facilities) and how many offenders return to probation as the result of violations.

COMMENT: This report provides useful information on the success of the various probation programs.

3. Judicial Department, Trial Courts, District Attorney Mandated Costs – District Attorneys in each judicial district shall be responsible for allocations made by the Colorado District Attorneys' Council's Mandated Cost Committee. Any increases in this line item shall be requested and justified in writing by the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, rather than the Judicial Department, through the regular appropriation and supplemental appropriation processes. The Colorado District Attorneys' Council is requested to submit an annual report by November 1 detailing how the District Attorney Mandated Costs appropriation is spent, how it is distributed, and the steps taken to control these costs. COMMENT: Section 20-1-111 (4)(a), C.R.S., states that “The statewide organization representing district attorneys or any other organization established pursuant to this article [i.e. the Colorado District Attorneys' Council (CDAC)] may receive, manage, and expend state funds in the manner prescribed by the general assembly on behalf of the district attorneys who are members of the organization.” Subsection (3) adds “The district attorneys may allocate up to five percent of the moneys received for mandated costs authorized by the general assembly for administrative expenses.” This RFI requires the CDAC to submit a request to the JBC if it wants the annual appropriation for District Attorney Mandated Costs in the Judicial Section of the Long Bill to be increased and it requires the CDAC to report how the money was spent.

4 Judicial Department, Probation and Related Services, Offender Treatment and Services – The State Court Administrator's Office is requested to provide by November 1 of each year a detailed report on how this appropriation is used, including the amount spent on testing, treatment, and assessments for offenders. COMMENT: This consolidated line item was created in FY 2006-07. The purpose of this format change was to: (a) provide increased flexibility to local probation departments to allocate funds for treatment and services for indigent offenders or those otherwise unable to pay; and (b) reduce year-end reversions of unspent cash funds. This request ensures that the General Assembly is informed of the actual allocation and expenditure of these funds.

12-Mar-2019 169 JUD-fig


INDIRECT COST ASSESSMENTS The indirect cost pool is comprised of two components.

A. Statewide indirect costs that have been allocated to all judicial departments, including the

independents.

B. Department wide indirect costs for JAAA only

A. State-wide indirect cost pool

The first component of the indirect cost pool are statewide costs that have been allocated to the Judicial branch as one amount. Because these costs are attributable to all independent Judicial Departments, they will be allocated to each independent Judicial Department based on total expenditures incurred in each department for the fiscal year.

In order to allocate costs among the independent Judicial Departments, some expenditures are excluded. Expenditures recorded in fund 4710 (the full accrual account group) and transfers within the Judicial Department or to other state agencies have been excluded because they do not result in the disbursements of funds. Also, debt service payments (for the COPS) have been excluded because they are large and infrequent (twice a year) and may have a disproportional impact on the allocations.

Statewide costs that will be allocated among the independent Judicial Departments include:

1. Workers’ Compensation

2. Payment to Risk Management and Property Funds

3. Payments to OIT

4. CORE Operations

5. Legal Services

6. Statewide Cost Allocation Plan (SWICAP) calculated by the State Controller’s Office.

The costs paid by the Judicial Department (items 1 through 5 above) have been removed from department JAAA before the allocation calculations. Although not paid by the department, the SWCAP costs must be included in the indirect cost pool to ensure recovery.

B. Department-wide indirect cost pool

The second component of the indirect cost pool are costs incurred by the Judicial Department that benefit the entire department (JAAA only). These costs include: Executive, Legal, Financial Services, Human Resources and Information Technology. These costs are appropriated in the long bill in the Courts Administration section as “General Courts Administration” (funding source code AKM) and “Information Technology Infrastructure” (funding source code CFP).

Direct cost base

The direct cost base are all costs that are not considered indirect costs. These costs are generally attributable to a program or function within the Judicial Department.

12-Mar-2019 170 JUD-fig


Costs used in the calculation

The expenditures used in the department wide indirect cost pool and the direct cost base must benefit all programs throughout the department. Some costs need to be eliminated from the calculation because they can cause indirect costs to be disproportional to benefit derived by the individual programs and can cause large fluctuations in the indirect cost rates. For example, purchasing IT hardware and software can be very expensive in one year but benefit programs for many years. Including the cost in the fiscal year the IT equipment is purchased but not in the subsequent fiscal years will cause a large fluctuation in the indirect cost rate. Also, a large IT purchase may specifically benefit one program (or a few) and does not benefit other programs. In this example the costs should not be included in the indirect cost pool and allocated to all programs.

Therefore, to provide a consistent and proportional allocation of indirect costs to direct costs we will use employee payroll (salaries and benefits) as a basis for allocating costs. This will result in an allocation of indirect costs on essentially an FTE basis.

Calculations

The indirect cost allocation is calculated by performing the following steps:

1. (Schedule 1) Obtain a report of total expenditures for the fiscal year for all Judicial

Departments. The report needs to be summarized by department code, fund, appropriation

code, unit, and object group.

2. (Schedule 2) Sort the report and remove the following expenditures:

a. Fund 4710

b. Transfers

c. Debt service payments for COPS

d. Centralized costs

i. Risk Management

ii. CORE Operations

iii. Workers’ Compensation

iv. Legal Services

v. Payments to OIT

3. (Schedule 2) The remaining expenditures will be summarized by CORE department code to

determine the percentage of total expenditures applicable to each independent Judicial

Department.

4. (Schedule 3) The statewide indirect costs calculated by the State Controller’s Office will be

added to the centralized costs to create the total statewide indirect cost pool. The statewide

indirect cost pool will be allocated among all the independent Judicial Departments based on

percentages calculated in step 3.

5. (Schedule 4) Department wide (JAAA only) indirect costs consist of payroll costs incurred in

the General Courts Administration long bill line (funding source code AKM). These costs

will be added the Judicial Department’s proportional share of the statewide indirect costs

(calculated in step 4) to arrive at the total indirect cost pool.

12-Mar-2019 171 JUD-fig


6. (Schedule 4) The total indirect cost pool will be divided by the total direct cost pool (salaries

and benefits only) to arrive at an indirect cost rate applicable to all funding sources.

7. (Schedule 5) The indirect cost rate will be multiplied by all salaries and benefits incurred in

each cash fund to determine the amount to recover from each fund.

The following funds will not be charged indirect costs even though salaries and benefits are charged to the fund.

General Fund Judicial Stabilization cash Fund Violent Offender ID Fund Sex Offender Surcharge Fund Underfunded Courthouse Facility Cash Fund Other Judicial Special Revenue Fund (law Library) Useful Public Service Cash Fund

Attorney Regulation

Except for the Office of Attorney Regulation, all other independent Judicial Departments are funded from the General Fund and therefore will not be charged indirect costs. The Office of Attorney Regulation will be charged their proportional share of the statewide indirect costs. Because the support provided by the State Court Administrator’s office is not as extensive as the support provided to the entire Judicial Department the methodology used for JAAA is not appropriate for JDAA. For example, JDAA has their own IT support staff, human resources and payroll staff. Therefore, the indirect costs charged to the Office of Attorney Regulation will be limited to their portion of the statewide indirect costs.

Schedule 6 budgets for long bill

This schedule illustrates the amounts that need to be included in the long bill.

12-Mar-2019 172 JUD-fig

FY2019

Schedules to Illustrate Indirect Cost Calculations

Schedule 1

TOTAL Expenditures by Department for FY2019

Department Department Name Total EXP

JAAA Judicial Department 568,377,908.12$

JCAA Judicial - Office of the State Public Defender 97,363,804.35$

JDAA Judicial - Supreme Court Grievance 11,618,945.61$

JEAA Judicial - Alternate Defense Counsel 39,780,080.68$

JFAA Judicial - Office of the Chilld's Representative 28,595,032.03$

JGAA Judicial - Independent Ethics Commission 317,467.05$

JHAA Judicial - Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel 20,572,505.23$

JIAA Judicial - Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman 960,468.00$

JJAA Judicial - Office of Public Guardianship 209.76$

767,586,420.83$

12-Mar-2019 173 JUD-fig

FY2019


Schedule 2

TOTAL Expenditures by Department for FY2019 EXCLUDING:

Full Accrual Accounting Fund (CORE fund 4710)

Transfers

Debt Service Payments for COPS

Centralized Costs-Risk Management

Centralized Costs-CORE Operations

Centralized Costs-Workers' Compensation

Centralized Costs-Legal Services

Centralized Costs-Payments to OIT

Department Department Name Total EXP Percentage

JAAA Judicial Department 468,290,397.56$ 70.2%

JCAA Judicial - Office of the State Public Defender 97,478,069.90$ 14.6%

JDAA Judicial - Supreme Court Grievance 11,315,111.43$ 1.7%

JEAA Judicial - Alternate Defense Counsel 39,721,911.08$ 6.0%

JFAA Judicial - Office of the Chilld's Representative 28,625,165.19$ 4.3%

JGAA Judicial - Independent Ethics Commission 316,586.00$ 0.0%

JHAA Judicial - Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel 20,539,633.86$ 3.1%

JIAA Judicial - Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman 948,326.61$ 0.1%

JJAA Judicial - Office of Public Guardianship 209.76$ 0.0%

667,235,411.39$ 100.0%

12-Mar-2019 174 JUD-fig

FY2019


Schedule 3

Summary of Statewide indirect costs attributable to Judicial

Appropriation Name Total EXP

Risk Management 944,272.00$

CORE Operations 970,599.00$

Workers' Compensation 1,829,719.00$

Legal Services 270,833.00$

Payments to OIT 4,527,616.00$

8,543,039.00$

Statewide Indirect Costs from State Controller 798,175.00$

TOTAL statewide indirect costs to allocate among departments 9,341,214.00$

Schedule 2 Allocation of Statewide

Department Department Name Total EXP Percentage Indirect Costs

JAAA Judicial Department 468,290,397.56$ 70.2% 6,556,008.18$

JCAA Judicial - Office of the State Public Defender 97,478,069.90$ 14.6% 1,364,681.03$

JDAA Judicial - Supreme Court Grievance 11,315,111.43$ 1.7% 158,410.17$

JEAA Judicial - Alternate Defense Counsel 39,721,911.08$ 6.0% 556,101.89$

JFAA Judicial - Office of the Chilld's Representative 28,625,165.19$ 4.3% 400,748.81$

JGAA Judicial - Independent Ethics Commission 316,586.00$ 0.0% 4,432.17$

JHAA Judicial - Office of the Respondent Parents' Counsel 20,539,633.86$ 3.1% 287,552.36$

JIAA Judicial - Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman 948,326.61$ 0.1% 13,276.46$

JJAA Judicial - Office of Public Guardianship 209.76$ 0.0% 2.94$

667,235,411.39$ 100.0% 9,341,214.00$

12-Mar-2019 175 JUD-fig

FY2019


Schedule 4

Calculation of the Indirect cost rate using payroll and benefit costs for JAAA only

Indirect Costs

Total Payroll and Benefits costs charged to General Courts Administration long bill line (FSC=AKM) 27,527,939.53$

TOTAL statewide indirect costs allocated to the Judicial Department (JAAA) from schedule 3 6,556,008.18$

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 34,083,947.71$

Direct Costs

Total Payroll and Benefits costs charged to all other appropriations in the Judicial Department 325,807,457.59$

Calculated Indirect cost rate 10.46%

12-Mar-2019 176 JUD-fig

FY2019


Schedule 5

Application of the Indirect Cost Rate by fund IDC rate = 10.46%

Payroll & Benefits Funds Assessed

Fund Fund Name Direct Costs Allocated IDC Indirect Cost

1000 General Fund - Unrestricted 277,444,886.47$ 29,024,556.63$

1010 Offender Services Fund 6,061,840.99$ 634,152.06$ 634,152.06$

1180 Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund 2,696,104.59$ 282,049.68$ 282,049.68$

12Y0 Violent Offender Id Fund 58,725.00$ 6,143.44$

13C0 Judicial Performance Cash Fund 335,295.20$ 35,076.50$ 35,076.50$

16D0 Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund 30,550,079.55$ 3,195,959.12$

20W0 Court Security Cash Fund 117,448.37$ 12,286.72$ 12,286.72$

21Y0 Justice Center Cash Fund 298,911.59$ 31,270.27$ 31,270.27$

2550 Correctional Treatment Cash Fund 41,420.29$ 4,333.13$ 4,333.13$

26J0 Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund 6,456,289.02$ 675,416.76$ 675,416.76$

27S0 Restorative Justice Surcharge Fund 85,261.40$ 8,919.52$ 8,919.52$

2830 Sex Offender Surcharge Fund 7,548.46$ 789.67$

29W0 Fines Collection Cash Fund 1,217,605.45$ 127,378.30$ 127,378.30$

29Y0 Underfunded Courthouse Facility Cash Fund 75,000.00$ 7,846.03$

700J Other Judicial Special Revenue Funds 230,069.06$ 24,068.39$

UPSF Useful Public Service Cash Fund 130,972.15$ 13,701.49$

325,807,457.59$ 34,083,947.71$ 1,810,882.93$

Indirect Costs for Office of Attorney Regulation 158,410.17$

From Schedule 3

TOTAL IDC to charge FY21 1,969,293.11$

12-Mar-2019 177 JUD-fig

FY2019


Schedule 6

Long Bill Budget Figure Setting

Long bill Section and line Fund Fund name Cash Funds ROUNDED

(1)Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

Indirect Cost Assessment 716 Attorney Regulation 158,410.17$ 158,410$

(2) Courts Administration

Indirect Cost Assessment 13C0 Judicial Performance Cash Fund 35,076.50$ 35,076$

20W0 Court Security Cash Fund 12,286.72$ 12,287$

21Y0 Justice Center Cash Fund 31,270.27$ 31,270$

26J0 Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund 675,416.76$ 675,417$

27S0 Restorative Justice Surcharge Fund 8,919.52$ 8,920$

29W0 Fines Collection Cash Fund 127,378.30$ 127,378$

890,348.06$ 890,348$

(4) Probation and Related Services

Indirect Cost Assessment 1010 Offender Services Fund 634,152.06$ 634,152$

1180 Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program Fund 282,049.68$ 282,050$

2550 Correctional Treatment Cash Fund 4,333.13$ 4,333$

920,534.87$ 920,535$

TOTAL 1,969,293.11$ 1,969,293.00$

Letternote totals for Reappropriated in General Courts Administration

Departmental Indirect Cost Recoveries 1,774,337$

Federal Grants Indirect cost Recoveries

Statewide Indirect Cost Recoveries 194,956$

Total Reappropriated Appropriation 1,969,293$

According to Paulina we can collect 406,490.61$

In FY19 we collected federal IDC of only 214,075.72$

but had a budget in the long bill of 284,299.00$

12-Mar-2019 178 JUD-fig


APPENDIX A. NUMBERS PAGES

12-Mar-2019 179 JUD-fig

JBC Staff Figure Setting - FY 2020-21Staff Working Document - Does Not Represent Committee Decision

Appendix A: Numbers Pages

FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual

FY 2019-20Appropriation

FY 2020-21Request

FY 2020-21Recommendation

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTNathan Coates, Chief Justice

(1) SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALSThis section provides funding for the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals. The primary functions of the Supreme Court include: generalsupervisory control of lower courts; appellate review of lower court judgements; original jurisdiction for certain constitutional and other cases; rule-making for the statecourt system; and overseeing the regulation of attorneys and the practice of law. The Court of Appeals is generally the first court to hear appeals of judgments and orders incriminal, juvenile, civil, domestic relations, and probate matters. The Court of Appeals also has initial jurisdiction to review actions and decisions of several state agencies,boards, and commissions. Cash fund sources primarily include annual attorney registration fees, law examination application fees, appellate court filing fees, and variousdocket fees that are credited to the Judicial Stabilization Cash Fund. Reappropriated funds are transferred from the Department of Law.

Appellate Court Programs 14,490,399 14,978,929 15,465,637 15,762,114 15,762,114 *FTE 143.0 143.0 143.0 141.0 141.0

General Fund 14,418,399 14,906,929 15,393,637 15,690,114 15,690,114Cash Funds 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel 10,650,000 10,650,000 10,668,712 11,168,712 11,168,712 *FTE 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0

Cash Funds 10,650,000 10,650,000 10,668,712 11,168,712 11,168,712

Law Library 572,897 572,897 788,204 1,056,728 1,056,728 *FTE 3.5 3.5 6.5 9.5 9.5

General Fund 0 0 215,307 482,890 482,890Cash Funds 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,941 500,941Reappropriated Funds 72,897 72,897 72,897 72,897 72,897

12-Mar-2019 180 JUD-fig

JBC Staff Staff Figure Setting - FY 2020-21Staff Working Document - Does Not Represent Committee Decision

FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Indirect Cost Assessment 258,887 334,534 131,305 131,305 158,410Cash Funds 258,887 334,534 131,305 131,305 158,410

TOTAL - (1) Supreme Court and Court ofAppeals 25,972,183 26,536,360 27,053,858 28,118,859 28,145,964

FTE 216.5 216.5 219.5 220.5 220.5General Fund 14,418,399 14,906,929 15,608,944 16,173,004 16,173,004Cash Funds 11,480,887 11,556,534 11,372,017 11,872,958 11,900,063Reappropriated Funds 72,897 72,897 72,897 72,897 72,897Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 181 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(2) COURTS ADMINISTRATIONThe Justices of the Supreme Court appoint a State Court Administrator to oversee administrative functions of the Branch. The State Court Administrator and his staffprovide leadership and technical and administrative support for judicial district staff. This section includes funding for: the State Court Administrator and his staff;information technology staff and infrastructure for courts and probation programs; employee benefits for all court and probation staff; multiple programs that areadministrated centrally rather than at the judicial district level; and operations of the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center.

(A) Administration and Technology.

General Courts Administration 26,651,092 25,208,111 26,452,735 28,101,180 28,101,180 *FTE 243.8 250.8 255.2 266.6 266.6

General Fund 17,907,163 19,636,441 20,921,215 22,569,660 22,569,660Cash Funds 6,057,248 2,962,728 2,965,562 2,965,562 2,965,562Reappropriated Funds 2,686,681 2,608,942 2,565,958 2,565,958 2,565,958Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Information Technology Infrastructure 11,828,915 10,864,410 15,613,453 16,455,510 16,455,510 *General Fund 403,094 1,376,236 890,046 1,652,583 1,652,583Cash Funds 11,425,821 9,488,174 14,723,407 14,802,927 14,802,927Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Information Technology Cost Recoveries 0 3,712,300 3,860,800 3,860,800 3,860,800Cash Funds 0 3,712,300 3,860,800 3,860,800 3,860,800

Indirect Cost Assessment 855,005 858,755 1,370,924 1,370,924 890,348Cash Funds 832,072 835,822 1,353,429 1,353,429 872,853Reappropriated Funds 22,933 22,933 17,495 17,495 17,495

12-Mar-2019 182 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


SUBTOTAL - (A) Administration andTechnology 39,335,012 40,643,576 47,297,912 49,788,414 49,307,838

FTE 243.8 250.8 255.2 266.6 266.6General Fund 18,310,257 21,012,677 21,811,261 24,222,243 24,222,243Cash Funds 18,315,141 16,999,024 22,903,198 22,982,718 22,502,142Reappropriated Funds 2,709,614 2,631,875 2,583,453 2,583,453 2,583,453Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

(B) Central Appropriationsd, the Judicial Department Information Technology Cash Fund, the Fines Collection Cash Fund, the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund, and the Alcohol and DrugDriving Safety Program Fund.

Health, Life, and Dental 33,150,528 35,261,715 39,184,758 42,097,764 42,097,764General Fund 30,465,620 32,442,734 36,110,745 39,003,414 39,003,414Cash Funds 2,684,908 2,818,981 3,074,013 3,094,350 3,094,350

Short-term Disability 355,031 370,973 350,417 363,658 363,658General Fund 325,558 336,774 316,944 330,369 330,369Cash Funds 29,473 34,199 33,473 33,289 33,289

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 10,619,357 11,308,146 12,241,474 13,188,862 13,318,164General Fund 9,836,206 10,336,222 11,247,976 12,222,255 12,343,480Cash Funds 783,151 971,924 993,498 966,607 974,684

S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization EqualizationDisbursement 10,213,101 11,099,802 12,063,320 13,188,862 13,318,164

General Fund 9,432,362 10,129,141 11,069,822 12,222,255 12,343,480Cash Funds 780,739 970,661 993,498 966,607 974,684

12-Mar-2019 183 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


PERA Direct Distribution 0 0 8,860,947 6,791,748 8,470,053General Fund 0 0 8,294,414 6,293,983 7,850,176Cash Funds 0 0 566,533 497,765 619,877

Salary Survey 4,974,368 10,832,232 1,142,149 3,153,967 2,252,909General Fund 4,670,658 10,254,076 1,121,260 3,004,362 2,252,909Cash Funds 303,710 578,156 20,889 149,605 0

Merit Pay 1,552,341 0 8,601,771 4,639,792 6,959,657General Fund 1,423,473 0 8,045,089 4,276,811 6,415,190Cash Funds 128,868 0 556,682 362,981 544,467

Workers' Compensation 1,471,444 1,829,719 1,464,056 1,404,569 1,404,569General Fund 1,471,444 1,829,719 1,464,056 1,404,569 1,404,569

Legal Services 213,866 270,833 573,207 573,207 573,207General Fund 213,866 270,833 573,207 573,207 573,207

Payment to Risk Management and Property Funds 1,127,976 944,272 1,058,074 845,759 845,759General Fund 1,127,976 944,272 1,058,074 845,759 845,759

Vehicle Lease Payments 93,762 94,335 121,289 135,149 135,149 *General Fund 93,762 94,335 121,289 135,149 135,149

Capital Outlay 0 0 347,945 625,602 625,602 *General Fund 0 0 347,945 625,602 625,602

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center Leased Space 2,579,918 2,626,605 2,673,314 2,721,674 2,721,674 *General Fund 2,579,918 2,626,605 2,673,314 2,721,674 2,721,674

12-Mar-2019 184 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Payments to OIT 6,079,311 4,527,616 7,401,966 8,112,286 8,112,286 *General Fund 6,079,311 4,527,616 7,401,966 8,112,286 8,112,286Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

CORE Operations 836,556 970,599 1,218,149 1,877,756 1,877,756General Fund 836,556 970,599 1,218,149 1,877,756 1,877,756

Parental Leave 0 0 0 0 0General Fund 0 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL - (B) Central Appropriations 73,267,559 80,136,847 97,302,836 99,720,655 103,076,371FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

General Fund 68,556,710 74,762,926 91,064,250 93,649,451 96,835,020Cash Funds 4,710,849 5,373,921 6,238,586 6,071,204 6,241,351Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

(C) Centrally Administered Programsl funds transferred from the Department of Human Services.

Victim Assistance 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000Cash Funds 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000 16,375,000

Victim Compensation 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000Cash Funds 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000 13,400,000

12-Mar-2019 185 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Collections Investigators 7,023,075 7,162,055 7,349,937 7,561,958 7,561,958FTE 104.2 104.2 121.2 121.2 121.2

General Fund 0 0 0 0 0Cash Funds 6,125,534 6,264,514 6,452,396 6,664,417 6,664,417Reappropriated Funds 897,541 897,541 897,541 897,541 897,541Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Problem-solving Courts 4,079,624 4,621,027 3,861,588 3,507,757 3,507,757 *FTE 50.6 57.6 43.6 36.7 36.7

General Fund 875,038 1,416,441 657,002 231,839 231,839Cash Funds 3,204,586 3,204,586 3,204,586 3,275,918 3,275,918

Language Interpreters and Translators 5,344,508 5,839,282 6,372,165 6,594,260 6,744,260 *FTE 33.0 33.0 33.0 34.0 34.0


Courthouse Security 2,727,567 2,730,314 3,253,564 3,256,785 3,256,785FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

General Fund 503,468 381,215 379,465 379,465 379,465Cash Funds 2,224,099 2,349,099 2,874,099 2,877,320 2,877,320

Appropriation to Underfunded Courthouse FacilityCash Fund 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

General Fund 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

12-Mar-2019 186 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Underfunded Courthouse Facilities Grant Program 2,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cash Funds 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000Reappropriated Funds 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Courthouse Furnishings and InfrastructureMaintenance 3,448,056 1,999,095 4,462,149 3,799,097 3,550,009 *

General Fund 2,639,800 1,999,095 4,462,149 3,799,097 3,550,009Cash Funds 808,256 0 0 0 0

Senior Judge Program 1,640,750 1,681,769 1,681,769 1,681,769 1,681,769General Fund 340,750 381,769 381,769 381,769 381,769Cash Funds 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000

Judicial Education and Training 1,460,283 1,464,342 1,525,938 1,032,588 1,032,588 *FTE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

General Fund 8,289 12,348 73,944 36,650 36,650Cash Funds 1,451,994 1,451,994 1,451,994 995,938 995,938

Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation 828,755 805,379 843,835 853,713 853,713FTE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

General Fund 314,500 314,500 314,500 314,500 314,500Cash Funds 514,255 490,879 529,335 539,213 539,213

Family Violence Justice Grants 2,670,000 2,670,000 2,670,000 2,670,000 2,670,000General Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000Cash Funds 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000

12-Mar-2019 187 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Restorative Justice Programs 1,000,842 1,122,932 1,125,298 1,128,022 1,128,022FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cash Funds 1,000,842 1,122,932 1,125,298 1,128,022 1,128,022

District Attorney Adult Pretrial Diversion Programs 477,000 477,000 569,000 1,042,705 1,042,705 *General Fund 400,000 400,000 400,000 873,705 873,705Cash Funds 77,000 77,000 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 169,000 169,000 169,000

Family-friendly Court Program 225,943 225,943 225,943 270,000 270,000 *FTE 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

Cash Funds 225,943 225,943 225,943 270,000 270,000

Child Support Enforcement 114,719 114,719 114,719 114,719 114,719FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

General Fund 39,005 39,005 39,005 39,005 39,005Reappropriated Funds 75,714 75,714 75,714 75,714 75,714

Mental Health Criminal Justice Diversion GrantProgram 0 750,000 1,192,543 1,195,573 1,195,573

FTE 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0General Fund 0 750,000 1,192,543 1,195,573 1,195,573

Statewide Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program 0 1,997,112 2,636,987 3,010,581 3,010,581 *FTE 0.0 0.9 2.0 11.0 11.0

General Fund 0 1,997,112 2,636,987 3,010,581 3,010,581

Compensation for Exonerated Persons 768,968 2,304,980 0 0 0General Fund 768,968 2,304,980 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 188 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Appropriation to the Eviction Legal Defense Fund 0 0 750,000 750,000 750,000General Fund 0 0 750,000 750,000 750,000

Eviction Legal Defense Grant Program 0 0 750,000 750,000 750,000Cash Funds 0 0 750,000 750,000 750,000

Capital Outlay 4,703 0 0 0 0FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

General Fund 4,703 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL - (C) Centrally AdministeredPrograms 66,189,793 72,340,949 75,760,435 75,594,527 75,495,439


(D) Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Centerand an annual appropriation for facility controlled maintenance needs. Cash funds are from the Justice Center Cash Fund. Reappropriated funds are transferred fromLeased Space appropriations to the Judicial Branch and the Department of Law.

Personal Services 1,606,098 1,619,081 1,627,201 1,635,939 1,635,939FTE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Cash Funds 1,606,098 1,619,081 1,627,201 1,635,939 1,635,939Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 189 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Operating Expenses 3,988,004 4,026,234 4,026,234 4,026,234 4,026,234Cash Funds 3,988,004 4,026,234 4,026,234 4,026,234 4,026,234

Appropriation to the Justice Center MaintenanceFund 0 0 4,600,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 *

Cash Funds 0 0 4,600,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Justice Center Maintence Fund Expenditures 0 0 1,788,538 1,288,538 1,288,538 *Reappropriated Funds 0 0 1,788,538 1,288,538 1,288,538

Debt Service Payments 15,682,448 15,628,459 21,840,346 16,187,655 16,187,655 *General Fund 4,704,365 4,598,683 4,492,915 3,883,418 3,883,418Cash Funds 5,136,590 5,082,601 11,294,482 6,141,792 6,141,792Reappropriated Funds 5,841,493 5,947,175 6,052,949 6,162,445 6,162,445

Controlled Maintenance 0 2,025,000 0 0 0Cash Funds 0 2,025,000 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL - (D) Ralph L. Carr ColoradoJudicial Center 21,276,550 23,298,774 33,882,319 24,638,366 24,638,366


12-Mar-2019 190 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


TOTAL - (2) Courts Administration 200,068,914 216,420,146 254,243,502 249,741,962 252,518,014FTE 442.1 457.9 466.5 480.5 480.5

General Fund 107,260,361 121,660,033 140,477,955 144,811,556 147,898,037Cash Funds 81,284,191 82,207,808 99,198,352 90,753,715 90,443,286Reappropriated Funds 11,524,362 12,552,305 14,567,195 14,176,691 14,176,691Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 191 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(3) TRIAL COURTSThis section provides funding for the state trial courts, which consist of district courts in 22 judicial districts, water courts, and county courts. District courts: presideover felony criminal matters, civil claims, juvenile matters, and probate, mental health, and divorce proceedings; handle appeals from municipal and county courts; andreview decisions of administrative boards and agencies. Water courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the determination of water rights and the use andadministration of water. County courts: handle civil actions involving no more than $15,000, misdemeanor cases, civil and criminal traffic infractions, and felony complaints;issue search warrants and protection orders in cases involving domestic violence; and hear municipal court appeals. Cash fund sources include the Judicial StabilizationCash Fund, various court fees and cost recoveries, and the sale of jury pattern instructions. Reappropriated funds reflect federal funds transferred from the Departmentsof Public Safety and Human Services.

Trial Court Programs 152,986,749 156,334,113 167,428,479 178,250,082 178,250,082 *FTE 1,859.4 1,859.1 1,908.5 1,962.6 1,962.6

General Fund 121,904,189 125,198,525 136,180,556 146,574,851 146,574,851Cash Funds 29,132,560 29,185,588 29,297,923 29,725,231 29,725,231Reappropriated Funds 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000

Court Costs, Jury Costs, and Court-appointedCounsel 7,888,518 8,318,232 8,688,484 9,061,535 9,061,535 *


District Attorney Mandated Costs 2,484,770 2,559,313 2,829,606 2,771,537 2,771,537 *General Fund 2,314,770 2,389,313 2,629,606 2,571,537 2,571,537Cash Funds 170,000 170,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

ACTION and Statewide Discovery Sharing Systems 3,240,000 3,240,000 3,240,000 3,240,000 3,240,000General Fund 3,170,000 3,170,000 3,170,000 3,170,000 3,170,000Cash Funds 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

12-Mar-2019 192 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Federal Funds and Other Grants 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000FTE 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0

Cash Funds 975,000 975,000 975,000 975,000 975,000Reappropriated Funds 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000Federal Funds 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000

TOTAL - (3) Trial Courts 169,500,037 173,351,658 185,086,569 196,223,154 196,223,154FTE 1,872.4 1,872.1 1,921.5 1,975.6 1,975.6

General Fund 135,112,228 138,910,821 150,503,397 161,212,674 161,212,674Cash Funds 30,512,809 30,565,837 30,708,172 31,135,480 31,135,480Reappropriated Funds 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,250,000Federal Funds 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000

12-Mar-2019 193 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(4) PROBATION AND RELATED SERVICESThis section provides funding for: the supervision of offenders sentenced to probation; the preparation of presentence investigation reports for the courts; victimnotification and assistance; and community outreach programs. This section also provides funding for the purchase of treatment and services for offenders on probation, aswell as funding that is transferred to other state agencies to provide treatment for substance use disorder and co-occurring disorders for adult and juvenile offenders. Cashfunds include: fees paid by offenders for supervision, treatment, and restitution; the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund; and various cost recoveries. Reappropriated funds include:spending authority for General Fund moneys that are appropriated to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund; Victims and Witnesses Assistance and Law Enforcementfunds transferred from the Trial Courts section; and funds transferred from other Departments.

Probation Programs 84,543,930 86,423,825 93,087,643 99,041,398 99,041,398 *FTE 1,184.7 1,184.7 1,234.8 1,271.2 1,271.2

General Fund 75,384,289 77,019,115 83,326,121 88,901,129 88,901,129Cash Funds 9,159,641 9,404,710 9,761,522 10,140,269 10,140,269Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Offender Treatment and Services 34,717,999 39,000,485 18,959,393 19,771,331 20,046,754 *FTE 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

General Fund 924,877 924,877 924,877 882,637 894,932Cash Funds 15,919,977 19,732,615 14,249,284 14,783,281 14,990,473Reappropriated Funds 17,873,145 18,342,993 3,785,232 4,105,413 4,161,349

Appropriation to the Correctional Treatment CashFund 16,984,804 17,154,652 17,326,198 17,412,829 17,655,396 *

General Fund 15,413,076 15,567,207 15,722,879 15,801,493 16,021,614Cash Funds 1,571,728 1,587,445 1,603,319 1,611,336 1,633,782

S.B. 91-94 Juvenile Services 2,496,837 2,496,837 2,496,837 1,596,837 1,596,837 *FTE 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 15.0

Reappropriated Funds 2,496,837 2,496,837 2,496,837 1,596,837 1,596,837

12-Mar-2019 194 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Correctional Treatment Cash Fund Expenditures 0 0 24,968,728 25,276,422 25,150,669 *FTE 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Reappropriated Funds 0 0 24,968,728 25,276,422 25,150,669

Reimbursements to Law Enforcement Agencies forthe Costs of Returning a Probationer 187,500 187,500 187,500 187,500 187,500

Cash Funds 187,500 187,500 187,500 187,500 187,500

Victims Grants 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000FTE 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Reappropriated Funds 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000

Federal Funds and Other Grants 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000FTE 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0

Cash Funds 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000Reappropriated Funds 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000Federal Funds 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,800,000

Indirect Cost Assessment 935,966 1,065,622 691,864 691,864 920,535Cash Funds 935,966 1,065,622 691,864 691,864 920,535

TOTAL - (4) Probation and Related Services 146,117,036 152,578,921 163,968,163 170,228,181 170,849,089FTE 1,247.7 1,248.7 1,298.8 1,325.2 1,325.2


12-Mar-2019 195 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(5) OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDERThis independent agency provides legal counsel for indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases where there is a possibility of being jailed or imprisoned. Cash funds consist of training fees paid by private attorneys and grants.

Personal Services 61,336,716 67,258,601 70,501,132 82,302,270 82,302,270 *FTE 809.1 869.5 888.8 962.4 962.4

General Fund 61,336,716 67,258,601 70,501,132 82,302,270 82,302,270Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Health, Life, and Dental 6,781,728 7,657,623 8,694,528 9,483,515 9,483,515 *General Fund 6,781,728 7,657,623 8,694,528 9,483,515 9,483,515

Short-term Disability 104,089 102,322 115,983 123,974 125,131 *General Fund 104,089 102,322 115,983 123,974 125,131

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 2,739,179 3,009,481 3,406,851 3,644,425 3,678,439 *General Fund 2,739,179 3,009,481 3,406,851 3,644,425 3,678,439

S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization EqualizationDisbursement 2,739,179 3,009,481 3,406,851 3,644,426 3,678,439 *

General Fund 2,739,179 3,009,481 3,406,851 3,644,426 3,678,439

Salary Survey 1,043,828 1,876,280 4,539,548 0 0General Fund 1,043,828 1,876,280 4,539,548 0 0

Merit Pay 447,355 0 2,185,039 1,528,585 2,292,878General Fund 447,355 0 2,185,039 1,528,585 2,292,878

12-Mar-2019 196 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Operating Expenses 1,846,295 1,832,513 1,902,463 1,927,608 1,927,608 *General Fund 1,846,295 1,802,513 1,872,463 1,897,608 1,897,608Cash Funds 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Vehicle Lease Payments 98,340 112,338 121,872 96,009 96,009 *General Fund 98,340 112,338 121,872 96,009 96,009

Capital Outlay 118,775 296,289 108,469 458,800 458,800 *General Fund 118,775 296,289 108,469 458,800 458,800

Leased Space/Utilities 6,450,639 6,966,417 7,141,257 8,019,383 8,019,383 *General Fund 6,450,639 6,966,417 7,141,257 8,019,383 8,019,383

Automation Plan 1,876,772 1,579,678 1,662,802 2,242,194 2,242,194 *General Fund 1,876,772 1,579,678 1,662,802 2,242,194 2,242,194

Attorney Registration 137,710 146,944 149,794 156,824 156,824 *General Fund 137,710 146,944 149,794 156,824 156,824

Contract Services 31,962 49,395 49,395 49,395 49,395General Fund 31,962 49,395 49,395 49,395 49,395

Mandated Costs 3,441,814 3,381,431 3,381,431 3,813,143 3,813,143 *General Fund 3,441,814 3,381,431 3,381,431 3,813,143 3,813,143

Grants 112,710 175,000 25,000 25,000 25,000FTE 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Cash Funds 112,710 175,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

12-Mar-2019 197 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request



TOTAL - (5) Office of the State Public Defender 89,307,091 97,453,793 107,392,415 117,515,551 118,349,028FTE 809.1 871.8 889.1 962.7 962.7

General Fund 89,194,381 97,248,793 107,337,415 117,460,551 118,294,028Cash Funds 112,710 205,000 55,000 55,000 55,000Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 198 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(6) OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSELThis independent agency provides legal representation for indigent defendants in cases where the State Public Defender is precluded from doing so because of an ethicalconflict of interest. Cash funds are received from private attorneys and investigators for training.


General Fund 1,634,731 1,374,459 1,604,826 1,917,637 1,824,520Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Health, Life, and Dental 163,134 185,370 208,622 257,673 236,456 *General Fund 163,134 185,370 208,622 257,673 236,456

Short-term Disability 2,293 2,195 2,773 3,278 3,114 *General Fund 2,293 2,195 2,773 3,278 3,114

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 60,339 64,513 88,118 103,036 97,874 *General Fund 60,339 64,513 88,118 103,036 97,874

S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization EqualizationDisbursement 60,339 64,513 88,118 103,036 97,874 *

General Fund 60,339 64,513 88,118 103,036 97,874

Salary Survey 119,297 40,141 0 8,620 8,620General Fund 119,297 40,141 0 8,620 8,620

Merit Pay 9,137 0 47,462 55,221 55,221General Fund 9,137 0 47,462 55,221 55,221

12-Mar-2019 199 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Operating Expenses 102,405 108,619 227,387 197,695 191,345 *General Fund 102,405 108,619 227,387 197,695 191,345

Capital Outlay 0 3,473 3,473 21,600 14,400 *General Fund 0 3,473 3,473 21,600 14,400

Training and Conferences 100,000 100,000 120,000 100,000 100,000General Fund 20,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 20,000Cash Funds 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000

Conflict-of-interest Contracts 31,495,953 39,011,564 42,654,216 48,876,942 48,876,942 *General Fund 31,495,953 39,011,564 42,654,216 48,876,942 48,876,942


Municipal Court Program 0 124,263 202,593 202,306 202,306FTE 0.0 0.8 1.9 2.0 2.0

General Fund 0 124,263 202,593 202,306 202,306


TOTAL - (6) Office of the Alternate DefenseCounsel 35,779,901 43,683,415 48,169,978 55,032,495 54,894,123

FTE 12.0 13.8 15.9 19.0 17.8General Fund 35,699,901 43,603,415 48,089,978 54,952,495 54,814,123Cash Funds 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 200 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


12-Mar-2019 201 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(7) OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVEThis independent agency provides legal representation for children involved in the court system due to abuse or neglect, delinquency, truancy, high conflict divorce,alcohol or drug abuse, mental health issues, and probate matters.


General Fund 2,676,361 2,716,585 3,149,679 3,420,403 3,241,716Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 137,021Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Health, Life, and Dental 226,640 254,276 296,430 389,689 389,689 *General Fund 226,640 254,276 296,430 389,689 371,445Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 18,244

Short-term Disability 4,254 4,146 4,754 5,299 5,173 *General Fund 4,254 4,146 4,754 5,299 4,967Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 206

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 111,957 122,911 140,802 157,724 154,122 *General Fund 111,957 122,911 140,802 157,724 148,023Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 6,099


General Fund 111,957 122,911 140,802 157,724 148,023Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 6,099

12-Mar-2019 202 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Merit Pay 17,245 0 82,847 96,160 64,107General Fund 17,245 0 82,847 96,160 64,107

Operating Expenses 252,316 215,775 327,072 318,514 318,514 *General Fund 252,316 215,775 327,072 278,514 274,325Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 40,000 44,189

Leased Space 92,556 128,952 128,952 128,952 128,952General Fund 92,556 128,952 128,952 128,952 128,952

CASA Contracts 1,050,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000General Fund 1,050,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000

Training 39,254 38,000 58,000 78,000 78,000 *General Fund 39,254 38,000 58,000 78,000 78,000

Court-appointed Counsel 20,983,922 24,055,775 25,340,543 28,656,617 28,656,617 *General Fund 20,983,922 24,055,775 25,340,543 27,214,715 27,214,715Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 1,441,902 1,441,902

Mandated Costs 60,074 30,200 60,200 60,200 60,200General Fund 60,074 30,200 60,200 60,200 60,200

Grants 48,559 26,909 26,909 26,909 26,909Reappropriated Funds 48,559 26,909 26,909 26,909 26,909

Salary Survey 45,454 74,854 0 0 0General Fund 45,454 74,854 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 203 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request



TOTAL - (7) Office of the Child's Representative 25,720,549 29,341,294 31,306,990 35,046,191 34,965,142FTE 29.5 31.0 33.0 34.4 34.4

General Fund 25,671,990 29,314,385 31,280,081 33,537,380 33,284,473Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 48,559 26,909 26,909 1,508,811 1,680,669Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 204 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(8) OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS' COUNSELThis independent agency provides legal representation for indigent parents involved in dependency and neglect proceedings. Cash funds are received from private attorneysfor training.


General Fund 1,120,116 1,221,878 1,521,334 1,911,049 1,581,687Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 139,771Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Health, Life, and Dental 84,338 93,928 159,549 191,026 178,354 *General Fund 84,338 93,928 159,549 191,026 165,682Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 12,672

Short-term Disability 1,611 1,665 2,108 2,936 2,650 *General Fund 1,611 1,665 2,108 2,936 2,414Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 236

S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement 42,397 48,978 64,247 85,798 76,545 *General Fund 42,397 48,978 64,247 85,798 70,325Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 6,220


General Fund 42,397 48,978 64,247 85,798 70,325Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 6,220

Salary Survey 17,159 31,841 0 45,501 30,335General Fund 17,159 31,841 0 45,501 30,335

12-Mar-2019 205 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Merit Pay 7,354 0 34,215 0 0General Fund 7,354 0 34,215 0 0

Operating Expenses 79,678 103,119 117,172 142,256 133,853 *General Fund 79,678 103,119 117,172 142,256 125,450Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 8,403

Title IV-E Legal Representation 0 0 2,370,740 7,112,220 7,112,220 *General Fund 0 0 0 0 0Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 2,370,740 7,112,220 7,112,220Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

Training 29,183 60,000 65,000 106,000 106,000 *General Fund 29,183 30,000 30,000 58,000 30,000Cash Funds 0 30,000 35,000 48,000 48,000Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 28,000

Court-appointed Counsel 13,523,625 17,576,705 19,286,624 20,225,726 20,225,726 *General Fund 13,523,625 17,576,705 19,286,624 20,225,726 20,225,726


Grants 31,095 31,095 31,095 31,095 31,095Reappropriated Funds 31,095 31,095 31,095 31,095 31,095


12-Mar-2019 206 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


Legal Services 2,131 1,864 0 0 0General Fund 2,131 1,864 0 0 0

TOTAL - (8) Office of the Respondent Parents'Counsel 16,072,085 20,510,173 25,239,447 31,538,689 31,294,065

FTE 10.0 10.0 13.0 15.0 14.0General Fund 16,040,990 20,449,078 22,802,612 24,347,374 23,901,228Cash Funds 0 30,000 35,000 48,000 48,000Reappropriated Funds 31,095 31,095 2,401,835 7,143,315 7,344,837Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 207 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(9) OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMANThis independent agency investigates complaints and reviews issues raised relating to child protection services, policies, and procedures, and makes recommendations toimprove services and promote better outcomes for children and families receiving child protection services.

Program Costs 731,833 980,397 990,918 1,092,070 1,100,015 *FTE 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

General Fund 731,833 980,397 990,918 1,092,070 1,100,015Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL - (9) Office of the Child ProtectionOmbudsman 740,358 994,028 990,918 1,092,070 1,100,015

FTE 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0General Fund 740,358 994,028 990,918 1,092,070 1,100,015Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 208 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(10) INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSIONThis independent agency is charged with hearing complaints, issuing findings, assessing penalties, and issuing advisory opinions on ethics issues that arise concerningpublic officers, members of the General Assembly, local government officials, or government employees.

Program Costs 171,415 198,696 204,709 211,534 217,145FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

General Fund 171,415 198,696 204,709 211,534 217,145Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL - (10) Independent Ethics Commission 326,993 340,396 204,709 211,534 217,145FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

General Fund 326,993 340,396 204,709 211,534 217,145Cash Funds 0 0 0 0 0Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

12-Mar-2019 209 JUD-fig


FY 2017-18Actual

FY 2018-19Actual


FY 2020-21Request


(11) OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIPThe Office of Public Guardianship is a pilot program that provides legal guardianship services for incapacitated and indigent adults in Denver who have no otherguardianship prospects.

Program Costs 0 1,718,786 835,386 796,364 796,364FTE 0.0 14.0 4.5 6.0 6.0

General Fund 0 0 427,000 314,404 0Cash Funds 0 1,718,786 408,386 481,960 796,364Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL - (11) Office of Public Guardianship 0 1,718,786 835,386 796,364 796,364FTE 0.0 14.0 4.5 6.0 6.0

General Fund 0 0 427,000 314,404 0Cash Funds 0 1,718,786 408,386 481,960 796,364Reappropriated Funds 0 0 0 0 0Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL - Judicial Department 709,605,147 762,928,970 844,491,935 885,545,050 889,352,103FTE 4,646.3 4,744.8 4,870.8 5,047.9 5,045.7


12-Mar-2019 210 JUD-fig


APPENDIX B. BUDGET SAVING OPPORTUNITIES REPORTED BY JUDICIAL BRANCH AGENCIES

Prior to the JBC hearing for the Judicial Branch, the Committee asked all Judicial Branch agencies to submit written responses to the following question. OSPB's FY 2020-21 budget instructions asked executive-branch agencies to search for the following budget saving opportunities: Unspent funds

Positions vacant > six months--is it really needed?

Reversions of prior year spending--is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence? Actuals vs estimates

Fiscal notes--did enacted program really cost what was estimated?

Decision items--are there pilot programs still on-going? Did the Department receive permanent FTE for a function no longer needed?

End-of-year spending--review purchases for final 8 weeks of each fiscal year -- were the purchases budgeted for in advance or end of year “spend-up”?

Travel, meals, official functions -- review for least cost vs max allowable Unrequested funds

Sunset recommendations--were any sunset recommendations not adopted by the legislature?

Appropriations--was the Department appropriated more than was requested?

Supplemental requests--why did the Department not include these requests in regular budget cycle?

Underutilized assets

Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector.

Using these guidelines, review your agency's budget and report the results.

MAIN JUDICIAL

Unspent Funds

o Positions vacant > six months –is it really needed?

o Reversions of prior year spending –is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence?

Actuals vs Estimates

o Fiscal Notes-did enacted programs really cost what was estimated?

o Decision Items –are there pilot programs still on-going? Did the Department receive permanent FTE for functions no longer needed?

12-Mar-2019 211 JUD-fig


o End of year spending-review purchases for the final 8 weeks of each fiscal year –were the purchases budgeted for in advance or end of year “spend-up”?

o Travel, meals, official functions –review for least cost vs maximum allowable.

Unrequested Funds

o Sunset recommendations—were any sunset recommendations not adopted by the legislature?

o Appropriations—was the Department appropriated more than was requested? o Supplemental Requests—why did the Department not include these requests in

regular budget cycle?


o Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector.

In preparing the FY21 budget request, the Department was aware of the OSPB budget guidelines and consequently submitted a budget that is 3.1% (in total) greater than the FY20 appropriations. As part of the budget review process, the Department was initially able to identify $500,000 in General Fund savings. Factors driving the Department’s General Fund increase include the annualization of legislation (nearly $1 million), increased payments to OIT (FY19 - $4,527,616; FY20 - $7,401,966; FY21 request - $8,112,286), the state PERA increase of .5% and the decision item requests. Subsequent to the November 1 budget submission, the Department has identified budget efficiencies that will be submitted in January as a budget amendment. The amendment identifies $6.0 million in reductions in the FY21 request, lowering Department’s overall budget increase to 1.51% (compared to a statewide average of 2.6%) from the FY20 appropriation.


We carefully manage our budget throughout the year and, over the past few years, our reversion rate has been approximately .5 percent. In addition, our actual expenditures for fiscal notes and operational costs have proven to be consistent and very close to our estimated amounts. A few years ago, we did have a fiscal note for the Rothgery legislation where we gave back some attorney FTE and funds when our estimate had been slight over-stated. We do not have any active pilots, we have not had any sunset recommendations and we do not have any appropriations higher than what was requested.

12-Mar-2019 212 JUD-fig


The OSPD has a centralized purchasing system. We continually review purchasing needs with a crucial eye towards obtaining the best value for the dollar, whether the supplier is in the private or public sector.

OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL ● Positions vacant > six months--is it really needed? N/A – The OADC has not had any positions vacant for more than six months. ● Reversions of prior year spending--is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence? OADC has no pattern for reversions. Due to the difficulty in caseload projections, some years the Agency has unspent funds while in other years it has used part of the $1,000,000 transfer authority from another Judicial Branch agency. See chart below. Actuals vs estimates ● Fiscal notes--did enacted program really cost what was estimated? Yes.

● Decision items--are there pilot programs still on-going? Did the Department receive permanent FTE for a function no longer needed? N/A

● End-of-year spending--review purchases for final 8 weeks of each fiscal year -- were the purchases budgeted for in advance or end of year “spend-up”?

Actuals vs estimates ● Fiscal notes--did enacted program really cost what was estimated? Yes.

● Decision items--are there pilot programs still on-going? Did the Department receive permanent FTE for a function no longer needed? N/A

● End-of-year spending--review purchases for final 8 weeks of each fiscal year -- were the purchases budgeted for in advance or end of year “spend-up”? The purchases were budgeted for in advance.

● Travel, meals, official functions -- review for least cost vs max allowable.

12-Mar-2019 213 JUD-fig


N/A

Unrequested funds ● Sunset recommendations--were any sunset recommendations not adopted by the legislature? N/A

● Appropriations--was the Department appropriated more than was requested? No

● Supplemental requests--why did the Department not include these requests in regular budget cycle? Supplemental Requests are due to the unpredictability of the Agency’s caseload. Underutilized assets ● Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector The OADC looks to both the private sector as well as the State’s existing purchasing agreements to find the best value.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD'S REPRESENTATIVE Unspent funds ● Positions vacant > six months--is it really needed?

OCR Response: The OCR had two positions vacant more than six months during FY 2018-19. Its Social Services Professional (SSP) Coordinator is a new position approved in the OCR’s FY 2018-19 budget. Staff prepared a job description for this position shortly after the 2018-19 Long Bill was finalized. However, with the OCR’s previous Executive Director’s retirement date of July 31, 2018 and the incoming Executive Director’s extensive experience using SSPs as a GAL, OCR decided to delay the recruitment for the new SSP Coordinator position until after the new Executive Director was hired in August 2019. When the new Executive Director started, he had many responsibilities, including the implementation of recommendations from the OCR’s performance audit. Once the audit was presented, the OCR focused its attention on finalizing the SSP Coordinator job description and interviewed candidates in November and December 2018. The OCR selected a highly qualified candidate requiring relocation; as a result a start date was delayed, causing the position to be vacant for more than six months. This is a vital new position which will significantly expand and enhance SSP supports for GALs throughout Colorado. The OCR’s El Paso County office has a part time (0.4 FTE) administrative support position. The previous incumbent had been with the office for many years. After her retirement, the office reorganized its administrative staff resulting in a delay in hiring the replacement. The office has received several applications and is in the process of interviewing candidates.

12-Mar-2019 214 JUD-fig


● Reversions of prior year spending--is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence?

OCR Response: Any significant reversions of prior year spending are typically from the OCR’s Court-appointed Counsel appropriation. This is the OCR’s largest budget item. The OCR performs a very detailed analysis for each of its major case types to estimate its subsequent year budget request. There are many complexities in estimating future caseload, including but not limited to, judicial filing fluctuations that do not necessarily correlate with the OCR’s appointments, appointments of guardians ad litem (GALs) that are at the discretion of judicial officers, and the increasing cost of appeals. In some years the OCR has sufficient funding in its Long Bill appropriation, while in other years a supplemental appropriation is necessary. The OCR continues to refine its Court-appointed Counsel appropriation, especially with more reliable data from its case management billing system that launched April 1, 2018.

Actuals vs estimates

Fiscal notes--did enacted program really cost what was estimated?

OCR Response: The OCR received an appropriation for HB19-1316 (Modernizing Marriage Laws for Minors) requiring the appointment of a GAL for underage parties seeking a marriage license. The OCR received an appropriation of $57,600 for the cost of an estimated 80 appointments per year for this new case type. This number was based on the amount of underage applications in the state filed by minors the previous year. In FY 2019-20 GALs have been appointed in 7 cases. While it may appear that the OCR overestimated the number of appointments, the requirement to appoint a GAL in these case types may be providing a deterrent to minors seeking to marry. After annualizing the estimated number of cases, the appropriation may exceed the actual appropriation from the bill. The OCR will continue to monitor the appointments/costs associated with this case type throughout the year.


OCR Response:

To date, the OCR has implemented two pilot programs related to SSP programming: multidisciplinary law office (MDLO); and rural district contract pilot. The OCR implemented these pilots with existing funding and did not request additional FTEs. The OCR’s Social Services Professional Coordinator (approved in the OCR’s FY 2018-19 budget request) is utilizing the information obtained from the pilot programs to expand and enhance SSP supports for guardians ad litem (GALs).

12-Mar-2019 215 JUD-fig



OCR Response: The OCR incurred approximately $92,000 in non-payroll related operating expenditures during May and June of 2019 (total Operating budget: approx. $215,000). Approximately $8,000 was spent on unbudgeted items (three Microsoft Surfaces for staff attorneys to use in the field). The remaining expenditures, including approximately $46,000 for ongoing technology-related expenditures (i.e., regular IT support and maintenance of the OCR’s case management and billing system), were for routine ongoing operating expenditures (i.e., not “spend-up” at the end of the fiscal year).

Travel, meals, official functions -- review for least cost vs max allowable

OCR Response: The OCR reimburses for actual and approved travel expenses, not to exceed federal General Services Administration (GSA) rates without Executive Director approval. Any cost savings from revising the OCR’s current policies would be expected to be minimal.

Unrequested funds


OCR Response: The legislature did not recommend the sunset of any program associated with the OCR.

Appropriations--was the Department appropriated more than was requested?

OCR Response: The OCR reverted minimal funding in various appropriations, including its most significant appropriation, Court-appointed Counsel. However, during FY 2018-19 the OCR requested and received a supplemental appropriation of approximately $1.1 million, of which it expended approximately $400,000.


OCR Response: The OCR requested and received an increase in its Court-appointed Counsel appropriation in its FY 2018-19 budget request. Actual expenditures exceeded

12-Mar-2019 216 JUD-fig


its projected expenditures approved in the Long Bill, necessitating a supplemental appropriation.


Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector

OCR Response: The OCR is not aware of any underutilized assets (i.e., goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in the private sector).

OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT PARENTS’ COUNSEL Unspent funds

Positions vacant > six months--is it really needed? Not applicable – the ORPC has not had any positions that were vacant for more than six months.

Reversions of prior year spending--is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence? The ORPC has rarely reverted insignificant amounts of prior year spending. Each time, it was due to a vendor refund for an item purchased in one fiscal year and returned in the next fiscal year.

Actuals vs estimates

Fiscal notes--did enacted program really cost what was estimated? No programs have been enacted for which the ORPC had estimated a fiscal impact, i.e., the ORPC has not received any spending authority via legislation other than the Agency’s initial appropriation.


The ORPC has one pilot program, the Social Worker Pilot Program, that is currently scheduled to end on 6/30/2020. The ORPC has submitted a decision item (ORPC R-5) asking to make the program permanent based on promising program results from an independent program evaluation and nation-wide research that supports this model of representation. We did not receive any FTE for the program.


Purchases made during the final 8 weeks of each fiscal year were budgeted for in advance. Because of the uncertainty about costs in the agency’s two largest appropriations, Court-appointed Counsel and Mandated Costs, the ORPC has exercised great caution in making expenditures and sometimes delays budgeted purchases until the end of the fiscal year but all purchases are budgeted. The Court-appointed Counsel and Mandated Costs appropriations comprise 91% of the agency’s total General Fund appropriation and are subject to fluctuations over which we have no control, including increases in case filings and costs per case. In addition, the ORPC is a new agency and has only three years of history

12-Mar-2019 217 JUD-fig


on which to base projections for those two appropriations. In those three years, the payment structure for attorneys was profoundly changed when the JBC approved our request to pay all attorneys on an hourly basis in lieu of paying attorneys in some counties on a flat fee basis and others on an hourly basis. In short, sound fiscal management dictates that we delay some budgeted purchases until we are confident that our appropriations are sufficient to cover our expenses.

Travel, meals, official functions -- review for least cost vs max allowable The ORPC Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual specifies that “Travel for the ORPC shall be for the benefit of the ORPC, only for the time period necessary, approved by the employee’s supervisor, and completed using the most economical means available.” All travel expenditures are reviewed for compliance with and have met these criteria. Expenses for meals and official functions are similarly reviewed for compliance with the criteria included in the ORPC Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual and have met all criteria.

Unrequested funds


Not applicable.

Appropriations--was the Department appropriated more than was requested? No.


Most supplemental requests are the result of receiving information that was not available at the time of the original budget request. For instance, in December 2018, after we had submitted our budget request, we learned of a recent change to Federal IV-E rules which necessitated a supplemental request for FY 2019-20. The change allows the title IV-E agency in each state to claim title IV-E administrative costs of independent legal representation by an attorney for a child who is a candidate for title IV-E foster care or in foster care and his/her parent to prepare for and participate in all stages of foster care legal proceedings. This makes it possible for the ORPC to access federal funding. For the past year, the ORPC has been meeting monthly with the Colorado Department of Human Services and the Office of the Child’s Representative to determine how our agencies can implement the changed rules and access the funds for Colorado, and to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Work acceptable to each of the agencies. Another example of a supplemental request that is the result of receiving information that was not available at the time of the original budget request occurred this year when the ORPC was informed of a large increase in the cost of a necessary contract that renewed during the current fiscal year. Finally, the ORPC is a new agency and doesn’t have a great deal of historical expenditure data upon which to base expenditure projections. In addition, expenses in the two appropriations that comprise 91% of our General Fund

12-Mar-2019 218 JUD-fig


appropriation vary based on factors that are entirely outside the Agency’s control. These factors include the number of attorney appointments and costs per appointment.


Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector. Most of the ORPC’s expenditures are for services from independent contractors, e.g., attorneys and transcribers. For other purchases, the ORPC always looks for the lowest cost and/or highest value option before purchasing goods and services. We do not know of any goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in the private sector.

OFFICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN

OSPB Question 1. Unspent funds:

Positions vacant > six months – is it really necessary?

None of the CPO’s vacancies have extended beyond six months.

Reversions of prior year spending – is there a pattern or a one-time occurrence?

FY 2017-18 Reversion: $42,063

In June 2018, the CPO reverted $42,063 to the General Fund from its program line.

This represents approximately 5% of the overall program budget. The most

significant factors that contributed to this were changes in staffing levels and

personnel. The CPO realized savings in salaries and benefits that were associated

with two specific positions.

During Fiscal Year 2017-18, one full-time staff member worked part-time for nearly

ten months because of medical reasons. This staff member resumed full-time

employment in September 2018. Additionally, in March 2018, the CPO’s Deputy

Ombudsman resigned. Given the significance of this leadership position in the

organization, the CPO did not fill this position for nearly five months. The position is

now filled. The CPO incurred significant savings from this resignation given that the

deputy position is one of the highest salaried positions in the organization.

FY 2018-19 Reversion: $68,940

In June 2019, the CPO reverted $68,940 to the General Fund from its program line.

The factors that contributed to this were changes in staffing levels throughout the year

which created vacancy savings. Specifically, the CPO was unable to fill two Child

Protection System’s Analyst positions for three months, July through September

2018. This is the amount of time that it took to recruit, post and hire for these

positions. Additionally, once the agency was fully staffed, two additional analysts left

the agency in early 2019 — each of these positions took nearly three months to fill.

This resulted in several months of vacancy savings for these positions.

12-Mar-2019 219 JUD-fig


The CPO does not believe that the reversions in Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Fiscal Year

2018-19 represent a pattern. Increased salaries for CPO staff – Request 1 in the

CPO’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Request – will improve recruitment and retention

of future employees and, as such, reversions will be uncommon in the future. OSPB Question 2. Actuals v. estimates:

Fiscal notes – did enacted program really cost what was estimated?

Not applicable.

Decision items – are there pilot programs still on-going? Did the Department receive permanent FTE for a function no longer needed?

Not applicable.

End-of-year spending – review purchases for final 8 weeks of each fiscal year – were the purchases budgeted for in advance or end of year “spend-up”?

In FY 2018-19, the CPO purchased three laptop computers to replace aging

equipment for three staff members. The CPO also purchased ergonomic assessments

for its employees as well as dedicated some resources to the improvement of its

internal database. These costs were not budgeted expenses and did not exceed $15k.

Travel, meals, official functions – review for least cost vs. max allowable.

Not applicable. OSPB Question 3. Unrequested funds:

Sunset recommendations – were any sunset recommendations not adopted by the legislature?

Not applicable.

Appropriations – was the Department appropriated more than was requested?

Not applicable.

Supplemental request – why did the Department not include these requests in regular budget cycle?

Not applicable.

OSPB Question 4. Underutilized assets:

Goods or services that could be purchased less expensively in private sector.

12-Mar-2019 220 JUD-fig


Given the relatively small size of the CPO, the agency does not have salaried

employees who provide in-house services such as information technology services.

Rather the CPO secures services from the private sector through a competitive

process.

INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION

Unspent Funds:

The Commission has no vacancies (it has only one appropriated FTE).

After consideration of the program cost reversions in FYs 2017 – 2019, the Commission can request a budget reduction of $10,000 in the program costs line. This should provide sufficient room for both anticipated and unanticipated expenses.

Actuals vs. Estimates:

Not applicable. For the Commission, there have been no applicable fiscal notes in enacted legislation through at least the last four legislative sessions.

Not applicable. The Commission has not implemented any pilot programs, nor been allocated FTE for functions no longer needed.

The only significant end-of-year spending included replacement of one aging laptop and one printer (both in FY 2017), and six iPads (in FY 2016). The laptop and printer were budgeted for in advance. The iPads were not budgeted for in advance, but were not an end-of-year “spend-up”; rather, the Commission made the determination to transition from paper-intensive meeting packets to electronic meeting packets.

The Commission’s only official functions are its meetings, which are typically held monthly. Meals are purchased in connection with meetings or travel and are well within approved per diems. Travel reimbursements are made to commissioners for attendance at meetings, as applicable; to the executive director for outreach and training programming; and to one traveler—either a commissioner or the executive director—for attendance at the annual conference for the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL). All travel has been reimbursed per established policy.

Unrequested Funds:

Not applicable. As a constitutionally created commission, the Independent Ethics Commission is not subject to Colorado’s sunset law.

The Commission has not been appropriated more than what was requested (through at least the last three budget cycles).

Not applicable. The Commission has made no recent supplemental requests.

Underutilized Assets:

For the Commission, the goods or services that could be considered for this question include only one main category: the professional services provided by the Department of Law. Through the services provided by the Department of Law, the Commission has access to the expertise of a wide array of legal disciplines (e.g., ethics law, labor law,

12-Mar-2019 221 JUD-fig


constitutional law, trial and appellate practice, etc.). Access to a similar breadth of expertise through the private sector would require retaining a mid- to large-size firm at a substantial premium.

12-Mar-2019 222 JUD-fig