Chaffee County DHS warns of budget uncertainty as child-welfare and benefits demand rise

Chaffee County Department of Human Services staff told the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners on May 20 that the department is projecting increased demand for benefits and faces revenue uncertainty that could force the county to draw on fund balance.

In a presentation on the department’s quarterly financials, Alex (staff member, Chaffee County Department of Human Services) said the January‑through‑March report projects the county’s benefits programs will run over budget this year and that a line the state has used in past years to “hold us whole” is uncertain. "I'm gonna start with the quarterly financials for DHS. This is January through March," Alex said when introducing the figures.

The nut graf: The department’s finance staff said one big variable is a state distribution that in prior years made up a large share of year‑end revenue; DHS officials reduced that projection from about $700,000 in last year’s budget to $500,000 in their current year‑end projection because the state’s eventual allocation is unclear. If the state does not fully reimburse the county, the department said it may need to dip into its fund balance to cover program matches and shortfalls.

Most of DHS’s outlays are pass‑through benefits that the state and federal government largely reimburse, but the county must provide a small local match. Finance staff showed the electronic‑benefits (EBT) section is projected to be far over budget — a blue note in the packet described an $800,000 variance on the expense side — and also noted that the county’s match for benefits could rise from a projected $150,000 to roughly $500,000 if demand remains high. The LEAP energy‑assistance numbers were described as “significantly higher than they have been in the past.”

Staff emphasized why those figures can jump year to year: benefits are demand driven. Alex said: “With the increased demand and this higher projection, we would have to match $500,000. So that's a pretty big difference.” The packet shows benefit reimbursements vary by program, with the county’s share between about 5% and 15% in most cases.

Child‑welfare staffing and services also drew detailed discussion. Monica (staff member, Chaffee County Department of Human Services) and Jess Tischer, supervisor of the child‑support/child‑welfare support team, described services that continue even as staffing and placement costs put pressure on the department’s budget. Tischer outlined placement services, interstate compact work for placements from other states, monthly casework visits, and programs for transition‑aged youth. She also described a new U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development‑backed youth homelessness program (YHDP) aimed at people ages 18–24; the grant supplies 10 housing vouchers in the county’s application so far.

DHS staff said child‑welfare spending typically exceeds the county’s allocation and that the county files a mitigation report to the state each year (this year due June 18) describing overspending by category and requesting the same state practice of holding the county whole. Alex told commissioners the state historically provided a supplemental year‑end distribution to cover those differences but that the size of this supplemental payment is uncertain this year.

Commissioners asked procedural and clarifying questions about the projections and the timing of state budget decisions. DHS staff repeatedly said the next quarterly report — after the state finalizes its fiscal year accounting around late June / period 13 — should make the county’s position clearer, and that the department would propose options if the outlook required changes to services or reserves.

Ending: DHS staff urged commissioners to treat next quarter’s report as the decision point for any operational changes. They emphasized that many costs are demand‑driven and that the department could not change benefit outlays, only the county’s budget posture and discretionary programs if reimbursements do not materialize.