Origin and Purpose of SCFD Tiers

The concept of three funding tiers in the metro Denver area Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) evolved after the district’s initial legislation was rejected by the Colorado legislature in the mid-80’s. Major cultural groups were unable to reach an agreement on the levels of funding prior to the first State Senate committee hearing.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to replace state and municipal funding for Denver’s major regional cultural facilities – the Denver Natural History Museum (now Denver Museum of Nature and Science), the Denver Zoo (now Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance), the Denver Art Museum, and the Denver Botanic Gardens. This group became Tier I with a set formula and an agreed division among the participants.

Sponsors and supporters recognized that as a regional tax district, the six suburban counties (now seven) should participate directly in funding and receive support for their local cultural organizations. They became the original second tier (later designated Tier III). Counties received funds to participate relative to the amount they contributed to the regional tax and within the purpose of the statute. Local elected officials (county commissioners) controlled distribution of those funds.

But a group of Denver-based cultural organizations wanted to share in the possible new tax dollars. The group was led by the Colorado Symphony and the Denver Center for the Performing Arts (DCPA) and included the Arvada Center for Arts and Humanities, two opera companies (Central City and Denver), the Denver Ballet (now Colorado Ballet), as well as the Children’s Museum. They were privately run nonprofits (except for the Arvada Center) that had received some government grants but not regular tax dollars. Additionally, they lacked broad regional appeal and had little track record of using tax dollars. The dominant impression of these group was that they procure their own support, mostly from wealthy patrons and donors.

The regional tax concept for cultural facilities was already a stretch for most Colorado legislators. Even though the four main Denver facilities had received regular tax funding from Denver and appropriations from the State – both funding streams ended or were greatly diminished in the 1980’s. This new group, which became labeled in the legislation as Tier II, had several statutory rules attached to make their entrance onto the tax rolls more acceptable and accountable. An annual threshold of $700,000 per organization was set and the amount received was based on an audience and budget audit. The intent was to promote access by creating an incentive for increased attendance, and also to demonstrate that the public attached particular value to the facility (i.e., ticket and attendance revenue). Budget requirements were important to ensure each would continue private development efforts. The concept would help attract audiences and avoid stagnant, narrow missions.

Does the Tier concept maintain value today?

• Tier I continues to reflect the largest public investments in cultural infrastructure in the seven-county Denver metropolitan area. The Tier I institutions (now numbering five with the addition of the DCPA) are both the repositories and stewards of the largest, most visited and valuable cultural assets in the metro region, charged with processing, interpreting and disseminating the region’s cultural heritage.
• The collections held by the DMNS, DAM, DBG and Zoo within Tier I are huge curations of art, natural history, plants and animals, and monetarily worth a staggering amount (billions). But beyond that, they play a vital role in maintaining and sharing the communities’ cultural identity and history.
• The physical structures Tier I organizations inhabit have been enhanced and expanded over the years through significant investment by private donors and Denver property taxpayers. They are cultural monuments and serve as the central social infrastructure in the community.
• Tier I is still highly favored in public opinion. The organizations are identified as the best known and most popular cultural institutions in the region in repeated polls and most recently in a 2025 poll (see chart below).

• One of the unique aspects of the SCFD is its comprehensive regional design. The five organizations in Tier I could run and likely win a separate tax district. They still believe, however, that a county-wide component is equitable and beneficial to support local cultural programming. It is also highly desirable in building support among local elected officials. The size and growth of many unique and locally-based, mid-sized organizations also enhances the reach and range of cultural and scientific programs and audiences’ interest.
• Many of the organizations in Tier II and Tier III could not win a local or regional tax election. Tier I organizations and the unified structure carry the regional district concept.
• Ultimately, SCFD awards are public taxpayer dollars. When the SCFD goes to voters for its periodic extensions, it must compete against other priorities for public funds. Organizations must justify the extraordinary grant of tax funding and demonstrate continued value to voters.

SCFD: Permanent or Term Limited

Photo: Steve Gadomski / Adobe Stock

Should the Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) tax be permanent or continue the use of voter-approved term limits?

1. The use of a term limit on the SCFD’s 0.1% sales tax was begun because many political leaders and others were concerned about giving permanent dedicated tax funding to potentially hundreds of mostly non-government entities with private boards, many with little or no track record of receiving government funding (aside from occasional grants for specific projects) without a voter check on the program. Legislation behind the term limit was to increase accountability of tax revenue spending over a specific time period. Use of a term limit provided an argument that if there was misuse of funds or if the program failed to achieve its purpose, voters could end the tax.
2. The term was seen as a major incentive to keep the recipients and programs focused on their cultural missions while also providing maximum accessibility and careful money management.
3. A term was also used to provide certainty in funding over a specific time period for planning and financial commitments to support major exhibitions, performers, and other programming.
4. Most of the SCFD statutes’ funding was not a grant program. It was considered important to place the formulas in the voter-approved statute to avoid the experience of the 1980’s National Endowment for the Arts’ grants controlled by the tastes and preferences of art connoisseurs, interest groups, and politicians. Formulas avoided authorities’ ability to skew the funding for unspecified purposes. Only the legislature and voters could change them, not at a terms renewal.
5. A renewal at the end of a term limit provides a period where the statute and formulas can be improved and updated by the legislators and voters.
6. When asked a choice question in a past-poll, voters preferred a term limit over permanence. (See table below.)

Voters’ Views on Sunset Provision	Total	Dem.	Inde.	Rep.
Sunset: The cultural district has a sunset provision that means every twelve years or so metro residents get to vote for or against extending the tax. They have extended it three times in elections starting in 1988. [ROTATED].
The district tax should be made permanent. The voters support it, it’s needed and it works. We don’t need more elections to extend the tax.	20%	24%	16%	19%
The district tax should be voted on every 12 years or so to make sure it keeps working the way we want it to and is still needed.	78	72	82	78

Ciruli Associates/CATZ 2013

Operational Guidelines Sustaining the SCFD’s Exceptional, Envied Funding Model

The Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) is the Denver metro area’s nationally recognized source of regional funding for cultural facilities and programs. It was from the beginning designed with important guidelines that have maintained it as a unique and nationally envied model. As it approaches a 2028 renewal campaign, it will be important to keep them front and center.

SCFD Operational Guidelines:

1. Ensure regionalism and incorporate all counties and cities. Seven counties are represented in its governance. Counties receive funding equal to local sales tax revenue contributions. Their appointed citizen boards direct their own grant programs.
2. Establish and maintain a modest tax level. The revenue collected has grown with the region—from $14 million to $84 million—while the sales tax rate of one-tenth of a cent has remained the same. Don’t make the tax an affordability burden or a competitor among other public needs.
3. Maintain frugal administration. Maximize funding for cultural organizations and minimize the overhead of central bureaucracy. Limit culture-related micromanagement and consultant add-ons.
4. Protect cultural organizations from politics. Avoid political and ideological regulation from cultural elites, elected officials, planning staffs, or consultants.
5. Use statutory formulas to ensure dedicated funding. Prevent vulnerability to special-interest lobbying for funds and frequent formula changes.
6. Incentivize organizations to increase access to cultural offerings. Support broad socioeconomic audiences’ experience of high-quality performances, exhibits, and popular programs. Utilize budget and attendance funding formulas for Tier II-qualified cultural organizations.
7. Maintain county-based grant programs. Ensure county-level grants are community-guided and accountable to elected officials.
8. Embrace diverse cultural offerings. Establish a broad statutory purpose test to ensure diverse arts and culture are welcomed.
9. Hold periodic renewal elections. Term limits keep the organization focused on public service, access, and fiscal accountability. They also allow for periodic updates to the statute.
10. Ensure transparency and accountability. Require regular audits and reviews of grant programs.

Mayors Election April 2027

Mike Johnston will run for reelection and two far-left candidates have announced: Lisa Calderon, a perennial candidate who ran a strong 3rd place finish in 2023 (see table), and Shontel Lewis, a “progressive” city council member.

Denver’s politics has moved left in the last decade as reflected in increased Democratic vote percentages for statewide and federal candidates and, most recently, the 2026 Democratic primary, where an outside Democratic Socialist defeated an incumbent congresswoman.

As the incumbent, Johnston, who is a left-center politician, is handicapped as a prima facia member of the establishment and not left enough for the “We Will Not Wait” wing of the Denver Democratic Party. Although the two far-left candidates will likely split the “progressive” vote, if there is a runoff, the incumbent will be challenged by a more united left.