County social‑services directors warn proposed state ‘hub’ districts could disrupt local staffing and services

Directors of county social‑services programs and Dolores County commissioners spent a large portion of the Dec. 8 workshop debating a state plan to reorganize eligibility services into 11 districts with regional hubs and centralized shared services. Staff and directors said the state map groups counties in ways they say are geographically awkward, leaves funding allocations unspecified, and could shift hiring and HR liability to hub counties.

A county social‑services director told the board the state intends to take many eligibility program dollars from counties and reallocate them to district hubs, then require hubs to staff application centers, call centers and centralized scanning operations. She said district allocations and compensation levels are unknown and that the state’s timeline leaves little time for counties to prepare. The director warned that county employees might have to reapply for positions, that hub counties would likely run HR and pay employees even when they work locally, and that differing HR handbooks could create complex workplace‑investigation and liability issues.

On staffing the director told the board, “the state is pulling back funds from every county and redistributing to these district areas,” creating uncertainty about whether smaller counties would be able to hire or retain local staff. Commissioners and other directors asked whether the state would cover the cost of required in‑office staff, whether hub counties would assume liability for cross‑county HR matters, and whether third parties would ultimately perform services if counties do not bid.

County leaders said their association (CCI) and the directors’ association are pushing the state to redraw district lines and allow districts to nominate or select hub counties rather than have hubs named unilaterally. Directors urged commissioners to monitor allocations closely and consider whether Dolores County should seek hub status or oppose the proposed assignment; staff warned that the state planned to issue RFPs for shared services with timelines that may require bids before counties know financial details.

Next steps included weekly check‑ins between county staff and directors to gather information to present to the board, and coordination with county associations to request clearer RFP and allocation data from the state. No formal county action was recorded deciding whether to apply to be a hub; commissioners asked staff to continue collecting details and to schedule follow‑up discussions.