JVC is back and better than ever. Mister Dermody, what do we got today? Thank you, mister chair. Tom Dermody, joint budget committee staff. This morning, I'll be starting you out with interim supplemental request for fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six for the Department of Human Services, Office of Economic Security. The department and governor are request well, I'll go through the request. I'll give sort of my explanations. I'm going to keep my narrative relatively short, and then we can have whatever discussion you would like. I'm not sure you introduced yourself, Mr. Dermody. Mr. Chair, Tom Dermody joined Budget Committee staff.
Thank you. You're welcome. So last week, just about a week ago, the Department of Human Services and the Governor's office requested $10,000,000 of general fund over expenditure authority for the Community Food Assistance Providers Grant Program. This request seeks to address the pause in the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits, while the federal government is shut down. On October 10, the USDA sent a letter to all states directing them to pause the processing of
November SNAP benefits and subsequent communications from the federal government have confirmed that SNAP benefits will not be dispersed in November while the government is shut down. This request, the $10,000,000 would be for additional funding that would be sent through Feeding Colorado, which is a grantee for that grant program, which is also the umbrella organization for five for the five food banks serving Colorado. The funding is anticipated to be dispersed in three equal installments between November 1 and December 1,
depending on the length of the federal shutdown. The department believes that Feeding Colorado has the capacity to distribute assistance statewide, using SNAP caseload data to prioritize communities with the greatest need. Staff is recommending approval of this request. However, staff will also true up through the normal supplemental process the appropriation for this grant program based off of actual expenditures and additionally will seek offsets for the increase in General Fund obligation through other reductions in programs in the Department.
Long story short, the state doesn't have a good tool to supplement the SNAP benefits or to replace the SNAP benefits. The community assistance, Community Food Assistance Providers Grant Program is the best proxy for it, but it is not anywhere near, as widespread or as efficient or as accessible to those individuals who are eligible and on the SNAP roles. It is the best tool that the state has. The department and Feeding Colorado, are going to try to target the assistance as best they can,
but it is, at best a rough proxy for SNAP benefits. Unfortunately, there's no way for the state to step in at this point, either technically or through statutory authority. There's just not an ability for Colorado to do that. Additionally, I'm not casting aspersions or anything, but this is a federal problem, not a state problem, and the state doesn't have the means, particularly during the interim, to stand up any sort of true proxy for SNAP benefits. So, with all of that in in mind,
staff staff does recommend the approval of this request, obviously, with the, caveats that I have stated. I believe we ran into this, at the end of COVID, when there was some challenge. Rep. Sirota, you were working on this to step in and like provide some SNAP benefits. You don't remember this? We remember we were faced with the same conundrum that the state doesn't have the authority or ability to step in and provide funds for a federal program that's administered in that way. So this being the best proxy that we have, appreciate that this is how we're using it.
Questions? Senator Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kirk Meyer, first I would say the dollars aren't going to get dispersed throughout the entire state. Where SNAP benefits are loaded onto electronic benefit cards that are direct transfer essentially a direct transfer from the federal government to those individuals that they can then spend at grocery stores, farmers markets, convenience stores wherever SNAP benefits are accepted. This tool, this grant program isn't that and cannot be that. The intent with this is, Feeding Colorado is one of the grantees for this food program.
They'll amend the contract to in three increments, about $3,300,000 each time, increase that grant. That allows Feeding Colorado to distribute that money to the food banks who have purchasing power to, buy food products and food goods at a relatively steep discount of 20 to 30¢ on the dollar. They would then distribute either through their network of, pantries and mobile food banks or through their partner organizations, faith based pantries,
community pantries that are independent of those food banks, distribute that food those food products to those pantries. My understanding is at no cost to those pantries for the food purchased with the state dollars. There has been some discussion about potentially sending direct cash assistance from those food banks to those affected food pantries that can't that don't have logistic capacity to receive or get food quickly enough, in terms of the timing of this, right,
like where people tend to use their SNAP benefits in the first two weeks of the month, most of their SNAP benefits in the first two weeks of the month. So this is again, this isn't a statewide solution. The intent here is to target those communities that are going to be most severely hit by the PAS and SNAP benefits. The state does have, down to about the ZIP code, data on SNAP recipients and and issuances and the intent is that Feeding Colorado will target those communities that are gonna be hit hardest. Senator Kirk Meyer,
make sure your mic is on. Thank you. I did. Thank you so much. Okay. Maybe I just didn't ask my question the correct way. How widely distributed is the grant funds, the $10,000,000 over the three equal installments, going to be distributed throughout the state of Colorado to how many different food banks and food pantries? Like, I mean, there's I I know there's data on where the SNAP recipients are. So I just wanna know how widespread. Is it gonna be focused more that we're only gonna get it into more urbanized and suburban areas?
How How are we going to be ensured that it's getting out to the rural areas of the state? That's what I would like to know. I wasn't asking on how they're going to I mean, I understand SNAP program because it's run through the counties and you know where I came from. So I just wanna know how we are ensuring it's getting distributed statewide and not just in pockets of Colorado. Mister Dermody. Thank you, mister chair. Senator Kurt Meyer, I will reiterate, it will be distributed in pockets in Colorado, because that's how they intend to focus that assistance on those communities that are most
impacted by this pause. That being said, the South And Southeast Part of Colorado has the greater proportionally has more SNAP recipients in terms of their population than anywhere else in Colorado. So my understanding is that there will be a focus to send assistance whether financial or actual food products to those communities and to those food pantries in those communities that are most severely hit proportionally and or in terms of it's not gonna be an equal distribution. This is not going out to every pantry or every grantee of this program.
This is really intended to be a targeted assistance to the most severely impacted communities. Rip Jagger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there a potential and I realize this is a level of detail that you may not know. Is there a potential hole someplace though in the state? I understand that there is no way to do this by way of the grant program that it can be as convenient to a beneficiary as the present program is,
but is there a hole someplace that we need to be really concerned about? That's one question. Mr. Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Taggart, this solution is riddled with holes. There it just it is it is effectively us trying to plow a field with a fork. The the scale of this particular emergency is vastly outstrips any ability for the state to mitigate it in any truly meaningful way where it wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be an emergency.
Snap benefits on a monthly level, it's $120,000,000 worth of benefits for the people for about 600,000 people in Colorado, about 330,000 households. This $10,000,000 even with the buying power of the, food banks is only gonna maybe get to about $50,000,000 in the for the essentially November and December riddled with holes. It is it is not a solution. It is a a sandbag in a flood. It's the best that the state has.
We don't have the mechanism to actually step in and provide that funding. We're also in a budgetary circumstance where we don't have the scale to actually address the SNAP emergency in any sort of truly meaningful way other than trying our best, and this is the best option that the state has at the moment. We don't have the funds or the flexibility the defense have. Rick Tacker. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Second question is going through the time line of what it's going to take from
an IT support. That takes us, assuming everything goes well today, that probably takes us to at least the November 5, if not the sixth or November 7. What do our can our households that need this food Still be going to the food banks, and pantries in that interim? And if so, how do they get how do the food banks and pantries then get reimbursed if they do in fact provide food, because I don't think we can wait
until this IT situation is complete or people are going to go without food. Mr. Germerty? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Taggart, I have had some discussions with the Food Pantry and Food Bank community in the last week. They are already working on this. They have been since the October. Their caseload has also been increasing over the last year in terms of their client visits. So they are they're functioning. They're working, but they're also stretched. This is this funding would likely be available to the food banks,
As you say, end of the first week of November, food distribution based off of that funding probably won't really start happening until the second week, but the food banks and food pantries are already working ahead on this. They are already increasing their purchasing, they are trying to get those food supplies out into the community as best they can. Food pantries aren't a don't operate on a standard process. They're they're individual entities. They have their own processes. Some have client lists and restrict their,
sort of weekly or monthly distributions to those clients, but do have emergency supplies for people that show up that aren't on their client list. Some are open versus registered, food not registered, but food pantries that are open and food pantries that have, like, a registry of clients. It it varies between food pantry, and the methods by which they provide that is you know, they they do have some emergency supplies on hand, but those are usually maybe a week's worth of food at most. Whereas if, if you're more of a regular client,
you may have a little bit, access to, more frequent visits. But their supplies are also stretched. This is, sort of highlighting a a weakness in the food security system, of Colorado in terms of the ability for pantries to step up in an emergency like this. But, again, it's an emergency. This isn't something you can necessarily head off at the pass. You kinda have to deal with it as it comes down on you. I got to phone a friend from the department that money will go out on the first. They have people in the office on that day ready to press the button if we all say yes here today.
And then as far as the Food Bank's plans go, we did receive a document from them essentially outlining the approach that will be taken in various different parts of the state by the food banks in those areas with how they will use these funds. So I think they have a plan on their end ready to go as well. So do you have that? No worries. It came from Feeding Colorado. Yeah. It came in last night. I'll send it to you right now. I think that answers some of the questions you were asking earlier, Senator Carpenter.
Probably not, but I'll have others. We'll answer some of them. I'm just saying it answers everything. I'm sorry, I'm not. Sarah Kirkmeyer. Thank you. But thank you for trying. So I'd like to know why $10,000,000 and why this has to come out of the general fund and why it's not coming out of the disaster emergency fund. I mean, I have a bunch of other questions related to emergency management, but I know that's not in your bailiwick. And so, it just seems to me that there isn't really a lot of good planning here and for us to get a plan late last night, and I don't even I don't know. I don't have it. But anyways, so I'd like to know how we decided on $10,000,000
when it's $120,000,000 program that we put out as far as benefits. I mean, I'm not assuming we could get to $120,000,000 I understand about the commodity prices and how it's you know, the buying power of the food banks and the food pantries. But, why 10,000,000 only? Mister Germany. Thank you, mister chair. Senator Kirk Meyer, I'm sorry because this is gonna sound like I'm just repeating back to you what you just said. The 10,000,000 I asked, it seemed relatively arbitrary to me as well. The intent behind it is that with the purchasing power of the food banks,
you'd get that scale up to about 30 to $50,000,000 worth of food purchased. It was the the sense that I got, it was that was the most reasonable and particularly given the budgetary circumstances which we're in. It was the best number that they could get to while allowing for not too big of an impact on the reserve deficit that we currently have. It adds about 3% to the, anticipated deficit to the 2526 general fund reserve. Why general fund versus the disaster emergency fund?
I my understanding of this is relatively limited. As it as you say, I haven't worked in that area yet, maybe in the future. But I would presume that a disaster would have to be declared, and that would allow the governor to access those funds. Since that disaster hasn't been declared, I think people are hoping that the federal government will step in and figure out a solution for this. And since a disaster hasn't been declared, then those funds aren't accessible. Senator Clark? So thank you. So you're correct. For the governor to access the funds,
he would have had to declare a statewide emergency disaster. And he could have accessed the funds, and we wouldn't even need to do a supplemental because he could have just accessed the funds. But from our perspective, if we're going to have to pass the supplemental, we can take the money from the emergency fund, from any cash fund, and move it over there. And there's money in that cash fund. So, I mean, again, this isn't about you. It's about basically the poor planning that's taking place in this state. This is an emergency disaster. If this isn't, I don't know what why we wouldn't declare that and why we weren't putting together incident management plans,
bringing in the human services department, the health department, the education department, and the agricultural department, and bringing in our emergency managers and working through a incident management plan in all 64 counties so that we could assure that food banks and food pantries in all 64 counties were able to receive dollars. And they could have done it through that way. We don't even need to be here for a supplemental. They could have just done that. So absent that and absent all that planning, the fact that I mean, you're right. This solution is riddled with holes. It's not a statewide solution. We have no guarantee where it's getting to.
We know it's not even close to the amount of dollars that are needed to provide the food that will be needed for food security. So we do have processes in place. We have a continental government plan. We have a state emergency operations plan. I know for certain, working through, everything we've worked through with COVID and other disasters in this state, that they could have put a process in place two weeks ago to try to identify and how to work through this to make sure that people weren't going without food. So, so I'm pretty disappointed in that, but that's not because of you.
Just want to make sure you're clear there. But I'm, again, back to we don't need to take this out of the general fund. And I think we should be taking the funds out of the disaster emergency fund, which we can do as a joint budget committee and put in the legislation that it's we're going to transfer cash funds essentially is what we're doing. And I think that's what we should be doing. And it should be more than $10,000,000 I mean, if the buying power is 30 percent, which is what Michelle Barnes told me as well, then we should be at like a $40,000,000 thing. And they should be we should be requiring plans.
There is no reason why they aren't working with all 64 counties. I don't understand that. I don't know why they think they can't do that. It's been done in other disasters and other emergencies. I mean, the floods in 2013, they were working with counties all across Northern And Eastern Colorado to get resources out to people working through all of those groups that we talked about. I mean, the other issues that's gonna arise here for food pantries is, volunteer management and probably donation management, quite frankly. So I don't know why they're not doing that. But I mean, from our perspective,
I think that instead of thinking it's coming out of the reserve, we should use the disaster emergency fund and that it should be more dollars than what we're doing. I think Director Harper wants to jump in on this one. Director Harper? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Craig Harper, JBC staff. I think I would raise two potential concerns there. One is that disaster emergency fund wouldn't look like general fund now, but it would be general fund next year because we'd have to backfill it at the beginning of the year. So it's all it's general fund all the way down eventually.
Yes. So I think the timing issue there is one potential concern. The other challenge that we have and this is I think Mr. Dermody, he went with the fork in a field analogy for this presentation. When he and I were talking earlier, it was, so you want to paint a mural, we don't have a brush, here's a sledgehammer. So there's any number of analogies that one can take here. But I think once we're in this interim supplemental process, the options as staff and for you all as the committee members are pretty limited
in that the request is for $10,000,000 of general fund. You couldn't approve an interim supplemental for more than $10,000,000 unless the department puts in a request. The statute is the statute states that you can approve the request in whole or in part, but our solid interpretation of that is that you cannot go above that request. So, I think this feedback, if the department and the governor's office took it and then put in a new request for a larger number, then that would open the door for the interim process. But in terms of the decision before you today,
the ceiling would be the $10,000,000 of general fund? Yes. Two important points I want to reiterate from that. One, whatever the source of the funds are on this, we're going to have to pay them back out of the next budget. So whether it's general fund or emergency funds, this is essentially when we come back in January, dollars 10,000,000 that we have to deal with. I think that the second piece that is really important on this is we can't go above what it is that they have requested on this. So $10,000,000
is the ceiling and we can do less, but we can't do more. Senator Kirkmeyer? Thank you. So, appreciate the information about the $10,000,000 That's very unfortunate. But with regard to taking it out of the disaster emergency fund, we actually don't have to backfill up to that total amount. We appropriate funds into the disaster emergency fund if they're all not spent. I'm assuming they will keep rolling forward, and maybe we spend more dollars. So if we're going to say that this is an emergency, we can take funds out of that fund, and we don't have to take them out of our reserve, and we don't necessarily have to backfill.
I mean, when I worked for Governor Owens and the Office of Emergency Management was in the Department of Local Affairs, there was never $269,000,000 as of September 30 in that fund. I mean, basically, what used to happen was is the joint budget committee would have to appropriate more funds into it as needed. So again, it's needed. It's an emergency. I've heard you say emergency at least five or six times. I agree totally with you on that. It is an emergency. And maybe if we, utilize the emergency fund, maybe the governor's office in this administration will also start utilizing the emergency fund and
realize that they don't even need to ask for a supplemental and that they should be putting together incident management plans, working with all 64 counties who have offices of emergency management to put together a plan that requires that isn't riddled with holes or a fork and a plow or a paintbrush and a sledgehammer, but that it's actually getting food purchases or money available to people who need it throughout this state. Because the other thing that's going to happen, which I think Representative Taggart was getting to, the food banks are going to get, I mean, they're just going to get overrun.
Right? So the people who normally go to the food banks to provide for their food security are now going to be in a situation where they probably aren't going to be able to get food because we are using a sledgehammer when we should be using a paintbrush or we should be using a plow instead of a fork. And that's what we're doing. And I don't want to be a part of that. I want to be a part of the solution. So I would hope that by the joint budget committee saying, look, this is an appropriate use for the disaster emergency fund, and there is I mean, I checked with Mr. Harper. I mean, I know there's probably not 269 point whatever million in that fund as of today.
But as of September 30, that's what was in that fund. And I think that's what they should be using it for. This is an emergency. It's important that the 600,000 people, of which about 50% are children, have the availability of food to them over the course of the next two months. Regardless of what's happening at the federal level, if this was happening because of a flood, a tornado, or because of a pandemic, we would they should be this administration should be looking at the disaster emergency fund and actually putting some plans together. So, and the fact that they don't look at this,
I mean, there's also continuity of government plans that they should have been looking at as well. And I know they have one. I know we have all of those things. So that's what I think we should be doing. And if we can only do 10,000,000, then I guess we can only do 10,000,000. But hopefully, maybe then this administration would understand that they need to utilize their emergency management system that we have in this state, working with local governments and working with faith based communities, nonprofits, and food banks, and everybody else that they have in their plan that's been set up, that's been tested, that's been trained on and get to work and get food out to people or
at least get the money out so that the food banks can buy an appropriate amount of commodities to serve people in this state. I see Representative Byrd has a hand up. I will just add, I can't imagine the comments this committee would have if we had been bypassed in this $10,000,000 request. So I think it's I would have been perfectly happy for him to follow the emergency management procedures and go through and put it together and figure out how to use the disaster emergency fund. I'd have been perfectly happy with that.
That's why we have those procedures in place. That's why all that planning is there. There are plans upon plans that get tested and trained upon. This is what they should have been doing. It's an emergency. It's not that difficult. I'll personally say to the gov's team, thank you for asking us about this $10,000,000 especially given the challenges we have with the budget next year that we're all going to know a whole lot more about tomorrow. I think us our ability to weigh in on this is, appropriate and I'm grateful for it. Representative Byrd. And then Representative Sirota.
Thank you, mister chair. I just wanted to point out, I I am also grateful for the governor's transparency and desire to follow this path to work with the committee to make sure we're addressing this in a way that, invites this kind of discussion and, allows us to be thoughtful. And I agree with senator Kirkmire in the ideal world, and I don't think anybody would disagree with this. We would be in a position to invest more money. But that is not this, situation we find ourselves in is not one of our making. We have been put in this place by,
the federal government. And so I I think it is not it's not helpful for us to be in a place where we are criticizing the state for not being able to do more. This is just our fiscal circumstances. The other point I'd like to make is I would have grave concerns about taking money out of the disaster fund, particularly at a time when we know there could be other disasters that those funds could be called upon and needed, particularly wildfires. Our state is no stranger to having significant disasters, particularly around even this time of the year.
So I wouldn't want to endanger or jeopardize the state's ability to competently address other disasters that might come to us. And just my hope, of course, I'm certain that this is a hope that is shared by this committee, that we the federal government will resolve and become the partner to us, that it should be and fund the programs that it is legally required to fund. And, so that's my comment. Thank you. We have, Rep Sirota and then Rep Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, yes, I would just echo.
I, too, had a question about where did $10,000,000 come from, why $10,000,000 And I think what I hear is this is this is the best that we feel we can put forward from the state at this time, understanding that, yes, to madam vice chair's point, we are contending with multiple disasters on the horizon. Most immediately here, the disaster of the, you know, the federal government falling down in their responsibility, to provide these food benefits for, hundreds of thousands of Coloradans,
millions of Americans at this point in time. And, you know, we've also got a disaster on our hands where people's health insurance premiums are about to, double, literally double, tens of thousands of dollars more that people will have to pay out of their pockets. We have multiple disasters and things that we are going to have to plan for and states cannot make up the, you know, in this instance, dollars 120,000,000 a month, that is incoming to the state. And so whatever disaster management program that,
you know, were to come up with is not going to replace the SNAP benefits that need to be directly distributed onto people's SNAP cards so that they can go to the grocery store and purchase the food that they need to feed their families. And so I have I do appreciate that I have seen that networks across the state are coming together, are working. We did see that letter come yesterday about the plan about how people have been working for weeks now actually to plan to meet this. And, I think people are coming together in multiple ways. So, you know, the state is trying to put in these millions of dollars to leverage funds,
20 to 30¢ on the dollar. Local communities are coming together. I donated to I personally donated to, one of the local service providers in my district yesterday, and I know many people are, hearing that call. I mean, this isn't something that we individually should be having to do right now. We pay taxes. We all pay taxes here, federal taxes. Stepping up. And nothing is stopping counties from organizing as well-to-do the things that they would like to do, but the counties have no way or capacity to add money to people's Snap cards
at this point in time anyway. So, I fully support the $10,000,000 in the request today, and I hope that we don't have to come back and revisit it, as this shutdown continues on and on. Rep Tagger? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for both Director Harper and yourself, Mr. Dermody. And I should know the answer to this, but I don't. I, too, as you know, asked about the $10,000,000 first thing this morning because I was concerned even if you took the leverage of,
at the higher level that $10,000,000 could become $50,000,000 is still less than 50% of the need. Given the fact that and this is where my question comes. Given the fact that we're all going to be here tomorrow for the governor's presentation, is it too late to ask the governor to take a look at additional dollars by way of either the emergency fund or another fund that we could come back and add to this tomorrow? Or is it just plain too late?
Director Harper? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If this year has taught me anything, it's that you can receive thirteen thirty one requests at any time. So it's never too late. I think and I don't mean that pejoratively. It's just we keep getting requests because new issues keep arising particularly out of the shutdown. So I think it's never too late whether obviously, Mr. Dermody's ability to analyze such a request would be significantly constrained and we wouldn't be able to get you a document two days ahead like we normally strive for.
So there's some timing constraints there. I do need to note in terms of the disaster emergency fund, I think there's an open question there that I can't speak to with any confidence. I do receive a number of updates from the governor's office when they have to access that fund for emergencies and they access it reasonably frequently. So I would suspect that there may be questions about whether this qualifies under the statutory definition of disaster to use that fund. And I suspect in fact, I know Senator Kirk Meyer knows more about that than I do.
So, so I think there's probably a question there. The easier question for me is that I don't believe that the JBC could approve an appropriation out of the Disaster Emergency Fund for this purpose because again, we're there as a branch. The legislature is quite hemmed in by the thirteen thirty one statutes and what you can approve through an interim supplemental is over expenditure of an existing appropriation. The appropriation to this grant program to the extent that you're putting it in this line item is from the general fund. So
you can't you right now, there's a zero appropriation from any other fund source. And our legal services statutory interpretation, which I certainly agree with, but I'll pass the book to them for the moment, is that we can't authorize an over as a branch, we and you all as the members cannot authorize an over expenditure of a zero appropriation. So you are constrained by the fund sources that are in that particular line item. Ms. Shen will be in next to talk about WIC.
And in that case, you were able to approve the general fund for that line item strictly because there was a small appropriation of general fund in the WIC line item related to CBMS. But in this case, this particular line item, it's a general fund appropriation and that makes within the constraints of the interim supplemental process, that's the fund source that you have to work with. Whether there would be other options outside of the supplemental process, to Senator Kirk Myers' questions, and points is a separate matter. But to the extent that we receive an interim supplemental request to add money for
this particular line item, it will be general fund because that's the process that's available in statute. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So could I then ask that question of yourself as a chair is, given the fact that we are going to need to be here again tomorrow, would we be comfortable to and I don't have a figure in mind, although $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 at the leverage factor gets a whole lot closer to $120,000,000 than does $10,000,000
And I realize it's the reserve. But I also realize this is food, and I'm scared to death because I'm from one of those regions that relies on this, and 10,000,000 scares me. So I know I've gotta be here, and I'll stay another few hours if I need to. But I would ask the question, could we ask the governor's office to change or supplement, I should say, to supplement? Okay. I couldn't hear what you were saying. I don't think your mic is on, Jeff, or Senator Thank you.
I thank you, Senator Mabile. I was saying that, Gov's team is in the room, and I know they are listening. And, they will give us a response on that question to, Rep. Taggart's, I'm sure, very soon. Senator Madeleine? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I, of course, agree with everybody this money isn't adequate, but we are actually in somewhat unchartered waters here. This shutdown could last for months, and then we are having looming disaster after disaster. People are gonna start to have to choose between eating and paying their rent,
between paying their rent and paying their utilities, and we are gonna see a massive amount of suffering. And so I think we need to make sure that we are acting prudently going forward so that we have the resources to address all of the things that could happen if this shutdown doesn't resolve quickly. And I don't haven't read anything that leads me to believe that we are about to end this shutdown. And so, yes, this is food,
but it could turn into, yes, this is shelter. Yes, this is health care. Yes, this is life and death. That's what we're looking at. And so I think we need to, really press on the federal delegation and on all of the federal government to end this shutdown and to make sure that people have what they need to survive in our country, including health care. I don't have a question. I don't I don't think we can ask mister Dermody, wouldn't you agree on, a statement like that,
Senator Mobley. So thank you very much. Senator Kirkmeyer, back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, I would agree with the comments that we made, and I think everyone has been pushing on their federal delegation, to vote to not shut down the the comment about, I'm not sure if the governor can utilize the state's disaster emergency fund for this situation. Well, he figured out how to give $400,000 for pet rescuer dogs and cats in Florida last year without a state declaration and took it out of this fund. So I'm pretty sure he could probably figure out how to use money out of this fund to actually
take care of an emergency that is at hand. I mean, to say that we shouldn't use money out of the emergency disaster fund because we might have future disasters is like saying, oh, you know, that little flood you just had down in La Plata County? Well, we might have other funds, other emergencies, so we're not going to fund anything out of it. I think that's kind of ridiculous, personally. And I think this is why this fund is here. This is an emergency in this state regardless of why it's caused, whether it's manmade or natural made. This is an emergency in this state where we have 600,000 people who are not going to have food security,
and we've got people back at the federal level. Blame it on whoever you want. It's happening where we have 600,000 people who are having their lives gambled with, and they're not going to be able to provide food on the table for them and their families and their children. 600,000. Of that, about 50% are children. This is an emergency. We have a disaster emergency fund. I don't understand why the governor hasn't declared that it's an emergency. That's all he has to do, and, apparently, maybe even not even that, given what he did last year. So I don't understand why he's not using this,
addressing this as such, that it's an emergency, using processes that are in place to start taking care of this issue because it could go on for longer than another ten days, another thirty days. It could go on. There's supposed to be another vote November 21, for goodness sakes. So it could go on for quite some time. And they should be addressing it. So I mean, if there are rules in place, I mean, we figured out how to fund WIC when we were told that we didn't think we could do that, and we figured out that one. I don't know why we can't figure this one out. But if nothing else, I mean,
yes, I am in support of spending the dollars. But come January, when we're in session and we actually have ability and influence, then I'm just going to say these emergency funds should be coming out of the disaster emergency fund. And I will tell you, the fund was never this much appropriated during the Owens administration. It never had $270,000,000 in it unless we knew that was how much money we actually needed and had to come ask the JBC to appropriate more funds. So, this is an emergency. It's a disaster. The governor should be using his powers that he has to fix this emergency in
this state regardless of why it's happening. It's happening, and we all know it's going to happen. So sitting around, holding our hand ringing our hands and trying to figure out where we can find a few extra dollars, I'd say they should just actually do what they should be doing, which is their jobs, but and get more money to this and take care of this emergency. And it's not happening. So, I mean, we can sit here and argue, and everybody can sit here and try and protect whoever they want to protect. But the reality is people are going to go without food. The people who normally get their food from the food banks are probably going to go without food because nobody wants to go and actually push forward a solution that
might actually work for the people of the State of Colorado. Doctor. Harper, there seems to be a lot of concern about the particular pot of money that this $10,000,000 dollars is coming from here in the state. So my recollection is that every year when dollars are spent from the disaster emergency fund, the JBC refills those dollars as part of the general fund budget. Is I don't believe there's a law requiring us to do that. I know that the dollar amount in that fund is larger than it has been
historically. Senator Kirkmire mentioned under the Owens administration it was much smaller. But under the Owens administration our reserves were also significantly smaller. I think it was 2%, maybe 5%. We're now at 15% reserves. So can you just help me understand what the difference would be here functionally for the budget committee in next year's budget if we took these dollars from the disaster emergency fund as opposed to just using the reserves given that we would probably end up having to refill that $10,000,000 anyway?
Director Harper? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we do have some backup in the room from the Office of Legislative Legal Services. So to the extent that you would like some legal assistance, I would request that they come up in terms of the statutory authority there. For my purposes, your obligation will be to refill the disaster emergency fund and get money back into there as part of the budget for next year, which is why I think in the end, it ends up being general fund either now or later. So I think that the net impact but again,
we can get in terms of the legal requirement, that's the way that we have always treated it. But I think there are mechanics behind the disaster process and the disaster emergency fund that the governor's office deals with all the time and that we as staff generally do not. So, the legal process there is a little bit beyond my area of expertise at this point. And but again, my take as your staff director is that in the end, it ends up being general fund. If I think if you wanted to take it from another fund source,
once the general assembly is back in session, that becomes an option. Right now, to the extent that you're doing this through an emergency or interim supplemental, again, if you are appropriating it to this line item, general fund is the one and only option for now. If you wanted to address if you wanted to change the fund source before the regular session, then that would require you all to convene another special session. So that would be the option that would be on the table there, I suppose. That said, if you approve this request or if you receive a larger one and approve it
at a later date tomorrow or whenever that may be, you are making a commitment, Mr. Dermody will write a letter to the state controller that says for the chair to sign that says that you have approved an over expenditure of $10,000,000 of general fund for this particular line item. That is your and it will say that you will introduce a supplemental bill to make that change. When we get to the regular session, you have a lot more flexibility than you have today. And this will come up in the next presentation if you at that point, you could actually reduce the amount that you approved,
you could add to it through a regular supplemental, you could change the fund source, you could add a new fund source to this particular line item for the current year only through the supplemental process to the extent that statute would allow it, you have more options then. Right now, I think the thirteen thirty one process for good reason constrains your options quite a bit. So right now, you could approve up to $10,000,000 of general fund. I don't believe the governor could request another fund source. The governor could request more than the $10,000,000 but the governor is limited by the same they have to request an over expenditure
that's actually possible under the statute. So the governor is constrained to the extent that they're proposing an interim supplemental to add money to this line item. They're facing the same fund source constraints that you are. That's the construct that statute puts in place. So they could request more general fund later today or tomorrow or if they want to do that in response to your discussion, they could also open the door to have discussions about legal authority under the disaster process, which again I would not even attempt to speak to.
But when we get into the session, if you wanted to change the fund source and it was legal to add disaster emergency fund or any other fund source to this particular line item, you could change the fund source at that time. Thank you. Director Harper, any other questions on this? Seeing none, Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move staff recommendation for the interim supplemental for the Community Food Assistance Providers Grant Program Emergency Funding. Are there any objections? Seeing none, that motion passes six-zero. Senator Kirkmeyer, go ahead. Just so we all know,
I will be bringing this back up in January, and we will be having this discussion. It is not a requirement that we have to refill the disaster emergency fund. We appropriate funds to there. And in fact, I don't know, did we refill that $400,000 from last year? Did we ever get it back? Nobody ever really showed us the proof that we did. So I'm thinking maybe we didn't, and I think they thought they were just brushing me off as usual. So there is not a legal requirement for us to appropriate funds to the disaster emergency funds to any amount of dollars. It's a best guess. And right now, there are funds in hand. It's an emergency.
I don't understand why the governor isn't declaring as such and figuring out how to put together a plan so that people in this state can get their food. But anyways, we will be having more discussion about it, I'm sure. And I just want to make that point. Thank you, Senator Kirkmire. I'm looking forward to it. I'm sure you are. I am too. Thank you, Mr. Germany. Ms. Shen, you're up. Can we get a memo from JBC staff on the Disaster Emergency Fund, our obligations and our history on this? Have we refilled it, refilled it? Have we essentially every year either increased either gone back to the previous year's dollar
amount or beyond, because refill is perhaps a pejorative term in this case? Can we just take a look at that at some point between now and when we have this discussion in when we can all come back here later. Absolutely, Mr. Chen. Thank you, Director. All right. Ms. Shen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kelly Shen, Joint Budget Committee staff. Today, I have for you a memo that's sort of a continuation of our conversation about WIC. So in September 2025, the committee approved the department's emergency supplemental requests for $7,500,000
general fund. And this they indicated this would pay for one month of WIC food benefits, so through the October and just food, in the event of a federal government shutdown. So the department has submitted an October request as well, but it's not seeking additional overexpenditure authority. But it does include, two changes, like, for transparency to their September request. So one, it's, you know, sort of asking to spend the funds through the November. And second, it's asking to spend both, fund both food, benefits and then also administrative costs for local agencies.
Sort of based on the committee's approval of their September request and the ongoing federal government shutdown, staff believes that these changes appear reasonable. And if the committee the big takeaway here is if the committee's not comfortable with these two changes, to make it clear to the department now through your conversation, and I'll go through why we're not asking for an official motion from you all. So that sort of ties into supplemental process constraints that, Director Harper alluded to in your conversation just now. This process sort of allows the community to approve over expenditures of existing appropriations and, approving it,
so as you did in September, sort of requires the committee to introduce a supplemental bill in the 2026 session. So when the committee approved the department's September request, it allowed over expenditure of the line item, which is women, infants, and children supplemental food grant, which includes both food and administration. So, supplemental food grant, which includes both food and administration. So, you know, it appears the department already has permission to sort of spend the funds on both of these purposes already, sort of pending proposed legislation that you all discussed, in September. There is not really, like, a mechanism for the committee to limit or direct the use of funds beyond what's in law. But what something you could do is if you wanted if you're uncomfortable with these
changes and you did want to sort of reduce the use of funds, you could amend the supplemental bill that you're sort of obligated to introduce. So that's an option. Given those sort of two constraints, I'm not recommending any specific action response to this request, but I think it'd be helpful if you all could voice any concern that you might have with these changes. The two updates in more detail are, one, at the bottom of the first page is timing. So they said they'd only use money on October, the executive branch, and that they would come back to you all if additional time or money was necessary.
Here they are sort of coming back for transparency, which I think is great. Given your prior approval, it seems reasonable since the federal government is still shut down to use these funds in November also. And then, two, the purpose is that, the department originally stated that these funds would only be used for food benefits. This request proposes to distribute $2,000,000 to local agencies for administration. The department has indicated that this should fully sort of fund that need in November. These local agencies are the ones that are actually providing nutrition education, counseling, breastfeeding support, sort of connections to different social services. There are 39 agencies.
They're all across the state. They're mostly local public health agencies and then federally qualified health centers. So, in October, these were funded through sort of rollover funds, for administration that the department was, had, but now the department has indicated that they are out of those funds. So they're proposing to sort of reallocate the 7.5 over expenditure that you already approved and use some of that to fund local agencies. I'm happy to go into sort of updates about funding that was received and spent, but open to questions. Rep Taggart, first up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a problem at all with the rollover into November, but I do have a question. When I see $2,000,000 out of $7,500,000 million dollars or $1,000,000 out of $7,500,000 given the fact that some of these funds were federal funds as well. If I take the lower number, one over 7.5% is 13.3% administration. And we just finished talking about the importance of food. And I just have a question as to is 13.3%
for administration really the priority? I'd rather this be closer to SNAP, but that the entire goes for food purposes. And in this particular case, infant formula certainly is a form of food. But that's just that math just scares me. To to drill down, is that, state admin or county admin too? Ms. Shen. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, Representative Taggart. So it's, this specific piece that we're talking about now is for distributing to local public health
agencies. And I think a lot of that isn't just administration and, like, the more traditional program administration sense. It's a lot of, like, service delivery. So, like, providing, like, nutrition counseling or, like, providing breastfeeding support and having those meetings. That is, like, sort of what's covered when they're talking about administration in this sense. It's not just sort of the IT, accounting, etcetera, that kind of thing. Sarah Kirkmeyer. I'm sorry. Could you explain that again? I I was reading something else, and I I wasn't paying attention, so I apologize. Miss Shend. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, senator Kirkmeyer. So, there are,
like, WIC clinics locally. And so, like, part of WIC program, yes, is this, like, food assistance piece. But then another part of the WIC program is, like, actually providing nutrition counseling and support and education. It's providing, like, breastfeeding resources for education. It's providing, like, connections to different social service, sort of resources and things like that. So it's also this, like, clinic piece, that's involved. It's not just sort of program administration in an office doing accounting or something like that. Senator Kirkmauer? So isn't those services being provided regardless? I mean, the funds aren't the funds already there?
I mean, most of these, the WIC program is through local health departments and health districts. So aren't they already providing that service regardless? And why do they need this additional fund these additional funds? Ms. Shen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer. So these are not additional funding. It's basically it's currently federally funded, these services. And they were able to rollover funds for these services, from the previous fiscal year in October, but they have run out of funding to continue to provide those services at the local level. So this is just funding that would fill that gap,
basically, that's been created. Well, seeing as we don't need to vote, I think the committee did vote last month to approve these funds for last month. If they were not needed last month, but they are needed for next month, then I don't think the change in date is going to impact how this committee feels about the importance of providing these services. So if all they're looking for is a mother, may I, I, yes, please go ahead and make sure that these folks are being taken care of. It was important then. It's important now, and I hope that we have this all solved,
before we have to think about this for next month. So, Ms. Shen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so does it sound like, there's comfort in both changing the timing and the purpose, like expanding? It's all for the WIC program, but it's not just for food. Anyone have any challenges with that? I don't think we need to take an official vote. Comments or concerns? I think we're good. Thank you, Ms. Shen. Anything else? I am not going to jinx us by saying this is my last turn as Chair because every time I say that, we're back again and I'd rather not be back again before,
what is it, like two weeks from now? So with that, the Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess.