Chaffee County staff told commissioners July 16 that federal changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules will increase county administrative work and could raise the county’s fiscal exposure under certain implementation scenarios.

County staff said two provisions drew the most immediate concern: (1) a federal change to how state error rates are calculated and applied (the staff called these "par rates" or error-rate matches) that could create county responsibility for a portion of benefit overpayments; and (2) a change in how periodic redeterminations are scheduled, moving SNAP recertifications from annual to every six months, which would increase staff workload.

Numbers presented to the board were illustrative: Chaffee County’s 2025 SNAP benefit total was cited as about $3,800,800. County staff said the county’s internal error-rate bracket placed it in a scenario (6–8% error band) that, if fully allocated to the county, would produce roughly $570,000 in matched liability; staff noted the state rate sits higher (the state example in discussion was roughly 8–10%, which translated to a different county share under other allocation models). Staff stressed they did not expect the state to simply pass all costs directly to counties, but the final allocation method is still under discussion.

Staff also reported an immediate and definite change: the county’s administrative-match requirement will increase from 25% to 50% for SNAP administrative costs, which was presented as an automatic change. Staff estimated the county’s increased SNAP admin share would raise local annual costs by approximately $230,000, absent any state mitigation. In addition, the increased recertification cadence (six‑month redeterminations) was characterized as likely to double ongoing casework and produce additional staffing pressure and risk of burnout.

County staff said they are working with statewide county associations and a specially formed committee of accounting directors to draft implementation guidance and to negotiate how federal and state rules will be applied to county allocations. Staff said some deadlines for implementation are not immediate but noted the match and redetermination timing will begin to affect local budgeting decisions for fiscal years starting in 2026 and 2027.

Commissioners voiced concern about staffing and service continuity. One commissioner warned the policy could worsen turnover and burnout in already‑stressed eligibility units, which in turn could harm processing times and increase error rates — a possible negative feedback loop that could worsen county exposure.

County staff emphasized they have asked the state for more granular, county‑level data to calculate local impacts precisely but had not yet received the requested dataset. Staff said they will continue to coordinate with state counterparts and county associations, and they will return to the board with updated cost projections once state data are available.