Justice RICE
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to section 3 of Article VI of the Colorado Constitution, the General Assembly has submitted to this court two interrogatories regarding House Bill 04-1098. The interrogatories are:
Interrogatory No. One:
Do the elements specified in House Bill 04-1098 that define “custodial moneys” comport with principles of separation of powers under Article III of the state constitution, the legislative power of appropriation under sections 32 and 33 of Article V of the state constitution, and the precedent of the Supreme Court construing such powers?
Interrogatory No. Two:
Can House Bill 04-1098 constitutionally exclude from the definition of “custodial moneys” any moneys granted by the federal government to Colorado for the support of general or essential state government services of the type for which expenditures are made in the most recently approved annual general appropriation act, including but not limited to additional payments received by the state under the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003”?
We decline to answer the first interrogatory because the nature of federal grant moneys, and specifically whether they constitute custodial funds, must be determined on a case-by-case basis with due consideration given to all of the relevant circumstances. As such, we cannot determine at this time whether the definition of “custodial moneys” as provided in House Bill 04-1098 will be adequate for evaluating future grant moneys, which may be disbursed in a manner not yet addressed by this court.
We answer the second interrogatory in the affirmative. Moneys granted by the federal government to Colorado for the support of general or essential state government services, such as those allocated under the federal Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (the “Jobs Act” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2004), are not custodial funds. Thus, the General Assembly constitutionally excluded such funds from the definition of “custodial moneys” in House Bill 04-1098.
I. Facts
On May 28, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Jobs Act. In addition to providing various tax cuts and credits, [1198]*1198the Act allocated ten billion dollars in fiscal relief to the states. 42 U.S.C. § 801(a). The Act sets forth certain minimal restrictions on the use of those state relief funds in section 801, requiring that the funds be used only to “provide essential government services” or to cover the costs of unfunded federal mandates. Id. § 801(d)(1).1 The Act further provides that “[a] State may only use funds provided under a payment made under this section for types of expenditures permitted under the most recently approved budget for the State.” Id. § 801(d)(2). Finally, the Act requires each state to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that the “State’s proposed uses of the funds are consistent with subsection (d).” Id. § 801(e). Beyond these limited requirements, the Act provides no guidance as to how each state should spend the money allotted, nor as to what appropriations process should be followed in making such decisions.
Pursuant to the Act, on June 12, 2003, Governor Owens signed and filed with the Treasury Secretary the required certification form, which set forth the state’s intent to comply with the very broad requirements listed above in terms mirroring the language of the Jobs Act. Subsequently, the federal government disbursed to Colorado $73.2 million on June 23, 2003, and $73.2 million again on October 7, 2003. Throughout the summer of 2003, Governor Owens communicated, through both press releases and letters from Dr. Nancy McCallin, the Director of the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, to Senator Dave Owen, Chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, his intent to set aside the majority of the funds as a reserve for “future budget shortfalls.” Additionally, over this period, the Governor allocated approximately $36.4 million of the funds to various programs with budget shortfalls and certain one-time capital projects.
In September 2003, Senator Owen sent a letter to Dr. McCallin expressing the General Assembly’s concern that the funds received pursuant to the Act were subject to the General Assembly’s plenary power of appropriation and questioning whether the Governor had any legal basis for spending the funds. In support of the Assembly’s position, Senator Owen cited a legal opinion provided to the General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services. The opinion stated that the “extensive flexibility given the state to allocate the funds for a broad, rather than particularized purpose,” precluded a finding that the funds were custodial in nature. Thus, because the Governor may exercise control only over “custodial funds,”2 the legal opinion concluded that the Governor had no authority to spend the funds provided under the Jobs Act.
In response to Senator Owen’s letter, the Governor requested an opinion from the Attorney General regarding the Governor’s authority to spend the funds received under the Act. The Attorney General found that because the “Act specifies the purpose the State is directed to accomplish and places some restrictions on the use of the federal funds,” the funds received under the Act are in fact custodial in nature. Consequently, the Attorney General concluded that the funds “can be expended based on the Governor’s directive,” rather than through the legislative appropriation process.
In January 2004, due to this conflict regarding the Jobs Act funds, members of the Joint Budget Committee introduced House [1199]*1199Bill 04-1098, defining “custodial moneys,” which are exempt from the General Assembly’s appropriation power, and expressly excluding certain types of revenue from the definition of “custodial moneys.”3 Specifically, House Bill 04-1098 defines “custodial moneys” as:
[M]oneys received by the Governor or by a department or agency of the state of Colorado: (I) That originated from a source other than the state; (II) That are awarded or otherwise provided to the state for a particular purpose, including, but not limited to, a specified program or function; (III) That contain restrictions on or defined standards for the use of the moneys or the use of which is subject to the approval of an authority or government other than the state, including, but not limited to, the federal government; and (IV) For which the state is acting as a custodian or trustee to carry out the particular purpose, program, or function for which the moneys have been provided.
H.B. 04-1098 at § (3)(a).
Additionally, the Bill excludes from the definition of “custodial moneys” the following:
Moneys granted by the federal government to the state that are subject to allocation by the state for the support of general or essential state government services of the type for which expenditures are made in the most recently approved annual general appropriation act, including, but not limited to, federal relief payments under the federal “Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003”, as amended, (P.L. No. 108-27), received by the state on or after the effective date of this subsection (3).
H.B. 04-1098 at § (3)(b)(III). Thus, the General Assembly tracked the pertinent language of the federal Jobs Act in excluding certain funds from the definition of “custodial moneys.”
At issue before us today is the language of the above two sections of House Bill 04-1098. In particular, we have been asked to determine whether the General Assembly may constitutionally exclude from the definition of “custodial moneys” funds such as those granted by the federal government under the Jobs Act and whether the General Assembly’s definition of “custodial moneys” in House Bill 04-1098 comports with principles of separation of powers as enumerated in the Colorado constitution and analyzed throughout our case law.
We find that the General Assembly may constitutionally exclude from the definition of “custodial moneys” funds distributed in the future pursuant to the Jobs Act or funds obtained from the federal government under similar circumstances. Moneys granted by the federal government to Colorado for the support of general or essential state government services, such as those allocated under the Jobs Act, are not custodial funds. As such, we answer the second interrogatory in the affirmative.
However, we decline to reach the issue of whether House Bill 04-1098 constitutionally defines “custodial moneys.” The nature of federal grant moneys, and specifically whether they constitute custodial funds, must be determined on a case-by-case basis with due consideration given to all of the relevant circumstances. Thus, we cannot determine at this time whether the definition of “custodial moneys” as provided in House Bill 04-1098 will be adequate for evaluating future grant moneys, which may be disbursed in a manner not yet addressed by this court.
II. Applicable Law
We begin our analysis with the doctrine of separation of powers, as set forth in Colorado’s constitution:
The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, — the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments [1200]*1200shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.
Colo. Const, art. III. We have previously recognized that while this concept appears fairly simple, “[t]he dividing lines between the respective powers are often in crepuscular zones, and, therefore, delineation thereof usually should be on a case-by-case basis.” MacManus v. Love, 179 Colo. 218, 221, 499 P.2d 609, 610 (1972).
The distinction between what constitutes a legislative as opposed to an executive power becomes particularly problematic when addressing the spending powers of the respective branches. See, e.g., Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 519 (noting that “[w]hen confronted by the necessity of exploring this twilight zone of competing constitutional authority, courts must measure the extent of the Governor’s authority to administer by the extent of the General Assembly’s power to appropriate”). While the General Assembly holds plenary power to appropriate state funds, subject only to constitutional limitations, the executive branch has the authority to administer those funds once appropriated. See, e.g., Colo. Gen. Assemb. v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371, 1380 (Colo.1985) [hereinafter Lamm II ] (holding that the General Assembly’s imposition of restrictions on revenue sources for its appropriations did not violate separation of powers); see also Colo. Const, art. V, § 32 (directing the General Assembly to issue an appropriation bill to cover the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments); Colo. Const, art. V, § 33 (“No moneys in the state treasury shall be disbursed therefrom by the treasurer except upon appropriations made by law, or otherwise authorized by law....”); Colo. Const, art. IV, § 2 (providing that the executive branch must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”). Thus, disputes over the control of funds frequently present separation of powers issues.
Importantly, the General Assembly’s plenary power over appropriations applies only to “state moneys,” while the Governor retains control over those funds deemed custodial in nature. See MacManus, 179 Colo. at 222, 499 P.2d at 610; Colo. General Assemb. v. Lamm, 738 P.2d 1156, 1170-73 (Colo.1987) [hereinafter Lamm III] (addressing whether various forms of federal grants constituted custodial funds subject to the Governor’s authority). Consequently, when addressing whether certain moneys fall under the powers of the legislative or executive branch, the primary question we are called to answer is whether those moneys constitute general state funds or custodial funds. A review of our previous cases provides some guidance as to the factors which are relevant in answering that question.
In MacManus, we addressed the constitutionality of a provision in the Long Bill4 which required state agencies to obtain prior legislative approval before spending any federal funds. 179 Colo, at 220, 499 P.2d at 610. While we recognized that the General Assembly had plenary power over appropriating state funds, we noted that custodial funds received from the federal government were not state moneys. Id. at 222, 499 P.2d at 610. As such, we found that the General Assembly’s “attempt to limit the executive branch in its administration of federal funds to be received by the executive branch directly from agencies of the federal government and unconnected with any state appropriations” violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Id. at 221, 499 P.2d at 610.
Later, in Anderson v. Lamm, we addressed provisions in the Long Bill which provided for the adjustment of state funding appropriated for certain programs based on any excess or shortfall in federal funding provided for those same programs. 195 [1201]*1201Colo. 437, 443, 579 P.2d 620, 624-25 (1978). In upholding the Long Bill’s provisions as not violative of the separation of powers doctrine, we noted that the General Assembly was adjusting the level of state, not federal, funding and, as such, was not “limiting] the executive branch in its staffing, resource allocation, or general administration of the federal funds it receives.” Id. at 444, 579 P.2d at 625.
In Lamm I, we further clarified the distinction between legislative and executive powers in the appropriation process. 700 P.2d at 510. There, we addressed the Governor’s interdepartmental transfers of state funds previously appropriated by the General Assembly to specific departments, as well as the Governor’s allocation of payments from the Chevron Corporation to the state based on a federal consent order. Id. at 510-13. We first rejected the Governor’s argument that he possessed an “inherent executive authority” to make the interdepartmental transfers. Id. at 519. Rather, we found that the Governor’s actions violated the separation of powers doctrine because “the transfers ... dramatically altered the objectives which the General Assembly had determined were to be achieved through the use of state moneys,” and, therefore, “impermissibly infringed upon the General Assembly’s plenary power of appropriation.” Id. at 521-22.
We did, however, uphold the Governor’s allocation of the Chevron fund, which was distributed pursuant to a federal consent order based on Chevron’s alleged improper marketing practices. Id. at 525. Under the consent order, recipient states were provided with a list of proposed acceptable uses for their portion of the fund and were required to obtain approval from the United States Department of Energy and Chevron regarding them ultimate use of the fund money. Id. In approving the Governor’s allocation of the Chevron fund, we observed that the fund “originated outside Colorado,” and that, under the consent order, the fund “was required to be used for a purpose approved ultimately by non-Colorado authorities.” Id. Moreover, while the Governor retained some authority to determine “which specific purpose among several options should be benefited,” we noted that “[t]he fact that a discretionary determination had to be made concerning the object for which those non-Colorado sums would be spent is not the controlling factor in assessing the nature of the fund.” Id. Ultimately, we concluded that, “under all the circumstances, [the Chevron] fund is most appropriately deemed a trust or custodial fund, to be administered in a trusteeship or custodial capacity.” Id.
Next, in Lamm II, we upheld a provision in the Long Bill directing that certain appropriations be satisfied from specified sources. 704 P.2d at 1374. The Governor argued that “by limiting the cash-fund sources from which the moneys are to be derived the general assembly [exercised] indirect control over the executive functions that generate the cash funds.” Id. at 1380. In rejecting the Governor’s argument, we found “no legislative control of the activities to be used to produce the funds analogous to the close legislative supervision of fund utilization disapproved in Anderson v. Lamm.” Id. at 1381. Rather, while we recognized that the Long Bill provisions at issue fell within that gray area “in which delineation of the boundary between the legislative and executive powers is difficult,” we found that, under the circumstances, the General Assembly’s actions did not impermissibly infringe on the “constitutionally protected scope of executive powers.” Id. at 1381-82.
Finally, in Lamm III, we explored in detail the various characteristics which determine whether funds are considered “custodial,” noting that “an examination of each federal statute under which Colorado receives funds [was necessary] to determine whether legislative appropriation was permissible.” 738 P.2d at 1172. There, we distinguished between the federal government’s revenue sharing programs, which provided virtually no guidance as to how states should spend the moneys, federal categorical grants, which “involve[d] a high degree of federal regulation,” and federal block grants, which “were conceived as falling between the extensive federal control represented by categorical grants and the absence of federal control represented by revenue sharing.” Id. at 1159. While the revenue sharing funds were [1202]*1202subject to no federal regulation and, by the federal statute, were to be expended by legislative appropriation, the categorical grants were “a means for furthering national priorities by authorizing grants for programs that met carefully defined federal standards,” and therefore were custodial funds subject to executive control. Id.
The block grants, however, we examined individually “to determine whether all or a portion of the grant should be subject to legislative appropriation.” Id. at 1172. We concluded that those grants requiring state matching funds, as well as those grants allowing states to transfer portions of the block grant to other block grant programs, should be treated as state moneys subject to the appropriation process. Id. at 1172-73. In reaching this conclusion, we stated:
We recognize that block grant funds subject to transfer are not state moneys, but we also recognize that the amount of flexibility allowed the state in determining the purposes for which the funds subject to transfer may be spent is inconsistent with a description of the governor’s exercise of authority over the funds subject to transfer as “essentially custodial in nature.”
Id. at 1173 (quoting Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 525). Hence, because these moneys fell outside the purview of the executive’s custodial powers, such moneys became part of the state’s general fund, to be appropriated by the General Assembly. See Colo. Const, art. V, § 33 (providing that “[n]o moneys in the state treasury shall be disbursed therefrom ... except upon appropriations made by law”); Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 520 (“ ‘The object of the constitutional provision inhibiting the payment of money from the state treasury, except by an appropriation made by law, etc., is to prohibit expenditures of the public funds at the mere will and caprice of the crown or those having the funds in custody, without direct legislative sanction therefore ....’”) (quoting People ex rel Hegwer v. Goodykoontz, 22 Colo. 507, 511, 45 P. 414, 416 (Colo.1896)).
On the other hand, we found that the remaining block grants constituted custodial funds because “[t]he federal statutes authorizing the grants specify the purposes the state is directed to accomplish with the money, the manner in which the purposes are to be accomplished and the restrictions placed on use of the funds by the federal government.” Lamm III, 738 P.2d at 1173. As such, these custodial moneys were to be allocated as directed by the federal government, and did not become part of Colorado’s general fund.
In sum, when evaluating whether certain moneys constitute custodial funds, we have taken into account all the circumstances surrounding the funds, including, as pertinent here, the source of the funds, the degree of flexibility afforded to the state as to the process by which the funds should be allocated, and the degree of flexibility afforded to the state as to the funds’ ultimate purposes.5 We have essentially distinguished between funds akin to state moneys, which allow the state broad flexibility in determining how such funds should be used, and therefore become part of the state’s general fund, and custodial funds, which are to be used only in the manner specified and for the purposes designated by the federal government. While the former, as general fund moneys, are subject to -the General Assembly’s plenary power of appropriation, the latter fall outside the scope of legislative au[1203]*1203thority and instead are subject to executive control. With these principles in mind, we turn to the issue before us today.
III. Analysis
A. Exclusion of Jobs Act Funds from “Custodial Moneys”
Turning first to Interrogatory Number Two, we examine the exclusionary language of House Bill 04-1098, which states that federal funds “that are subject to allocation by the state for the support of general or essential state government services of the type for which expenditures are made in the most recently approved annual general appropriation act” do not constitute “custodial moneys” subject to executive control. Because the exclusionary language of House Bill 04-1098 is essentially the same as the language of the Jobs Act,6 we have a concrete example of the type of federal grant implicated by House Bill 04-1098. Therefore, we can state with a sufficient degree of certainty that funds distributed to the state in the manner described in House Bill 04-1098 at section (3)(b)(III), are not “custodial moneys.” This is because funds such as those under the Jobs Act, disbursed to the state with such minimal guidance as to the process by which such funds shall be allocated and as to the purposes for which the funds may be spent, cannot fairly be described as “custodial” in nature. Rather, such funds are more appropriately deemed general fund moneys. Thus, House Bill 04 1098 may constitutionally exclude such funds from the definition of “custodial moneys.” We therefore answer the second interrogatory in the affirmative.
A consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding the allocation of Jobs Act funds to Colorado, consistent with our prior decisions, supports our conclusion that the funds such as those provided for in the Act are not custodial. Specifically with regard to the first factor — the origin of the funds — the Governor argues that the source of the funds, in this case the federal government, is in and of itself determinative of the funds’ status as custodial. The General Assembly, on the other hand, argues that the source of the money is but one criterion to be considered in evaluating the nature of the funds.
We agree with the General Assembly that the fact that the moneys come from the federal government cannot, without more, determine whether funds are custodial. In MacManus, we stated rather broadly that “federal contributions are not the subject of the appropriative power of the legislature.” 179 Colo. at 222, 499 P.2d at 610. Nevertheless, since we issued that opinion, we have found that some funds deriving from the federal government are more akin to state moneys, and therefore subject to legislative appropriation. For example, we held that federal block grants which were subject to state matching funds or which could be transferred by the states to other block grant programs allowed states too much flexibility to be deemed custodial, and therefore must be allocated as general fund moneys via the legislative appropriation process. Lamm III, 738 P.2d at 1172-73. Thus, we cannot rest our analysis of the Jobs Act funds on the nature of their source, but must instead consider the remaining factors regarding the process by which the funds may be allocated and the purposes for which the funds may be used.
The Jobs Act provides virtually no guidance as to what process must be followed in allocating the funds at the state level. The Act requires only that the state pre-certify that it will use the funds in compliance with the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 801(e), but beyond that lacks any form of post-distribution regulation to ensure that the funds are in fact being used and distributed appropriately. Thus, as with the federal block grants we addressed in Lamm III, “Congress has left the issue of state legislative appropriation ... for each state to determine.” 738 P.2d at 1169.
[1204]*1204Lacking any explicit guidance from Congress regarding the appropriation process under the Jobs Act, we turn finally to the degree of flexibility which Congress has afforded the states in allocating the funds. Both the Governor and the General Assembly have placed a great deal of reliance on the Act’s language directing the states to use the funds for “essential government services,” 42 U.S.C. § 801(d)(1)(A), although they disagree as to the implication of that directive.
The Governor argues that by limiting the use of the funds to “essential government services,” the federal government has provided a limited range of purposes within which the executive retains ultimate discretion as to the specific uses. See, e.g., Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 525 (describing a fund as custodial where the Governor retained some authority to determine “which specific purpose among several options should be benefited”). On the other hand, the General Assembly argues that by directing states to use the Jobs Act funds on “essential government services,” Congress has not limited the states in their use of the funds at all, and that such broad flexibility cannot be consistent with the notion of custodial funds. See, e.g., Lamm III, 738 P.2d at 1173 (finding that “the amount of flexibility” allowed states in transferring certain block grant funds was “inconsistent with a description of the governor’s exercise of authority over the funds subject to transfer as ‘essentially custodial in nature’ ”).
We agree with the General Assembly that Congress has afforded a degree of flexibility regarding the allocation of Jobs Act funds which cannot fairly be described as custodial. We have previously defined custodial funds as those “funds not generated by tax revenues which are given to the state for particular purposes and of which the state is a custodian or trustee to carry out the purposes for which the sums have been provided.” Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 524. Applying that definition to the Jobs Act funds at issue today, we conclude that, based on the degree of flexibility accompanying the funds, the moneys granted under the Act are not custodial in nature. Instead, such moneys necessarily become part of the state’s general fund subject to the legislative appropriation process.
Looking at the plain language of the Jobs Act, the broad category of “essential government services” is not a “particular purpose,” but rather allows each state to use the Jobs Act funds as it sees fit, based on its own budgetary needs. Moreover, the debate surrounding state fiscal relief under the Jobs Act demonstrates that the Senators intended states to use the funding as they deemed necessary in a time of fiscal crisis. For example, Senator Susan Collins of Maine stated:
By no means do we intend to prohibit States from using the revenue sharing portion of this amendment on services or other spending that the State cut in its most recent budget. If a State wanted to use a portion of these funds to restore all or part of a vital service it was forced to eliminate or reduce, it should be allowed to do so. We know that the State is the best judge of how to prioritize these funds, not the Federal Government.
149 Cong. Rec. S6148-02, at S6208 (daily ed. May 14, 2003) (statement of Sen. Collins)(emphasis added). Additionally, we find particularly instructive the fact that the Jobs Act was altered from its original form in order to remove a list of specific governmental programs and activities which the funds should serve, and instead listed “essential government services” as the only guidance in directing states regarding use of the Jobs Act funds. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-126, at 168 (2003). . Finally, because once the state has received the Jobs Act funds it is no longer subject to any meaningful federal regulation regarding the use of the moneys, the State acts more in the role of an outright owner of those funds than as a guardian or custodian. As such, the moneys should be treated as part of Colorado’s general fund and therefore subject to legislative appropriation, rather than as custodial moneys subject to executive control.
Based upon our consideration of all of the above circumstances, we find that the funds at issue today cannot be described as custodial. Unlike those block grants held to be custodial in Lamm III, the Jobs Act funds do [1205]*1205not “specify the purposes the state is directed to accomplish with the money, the manner in which the purposes are to be accomplished and the restrictions placed on use of the funds by the federal government.” 738 P.2d at 1173. We therefore affirm that House Bill 04-1098 is constitutional insofar as it expressly excludes from the definition of “custodial moneys” funds distributed in the same manner as those allocated pursuant to the Jobs Act.
B. The Definition of “Custodial Moneys”
We next address Interrogatory Number One, turning our attention to the portion of House Bill 04-1098 which defines “custodial moneys.” The language used to define “custodial moneys” essentially relies on various factors discussed in our case law, providing four basic elements which, together, constitute “custodial moneys”: (1) the funds originate from outside of Colorado; (2) the funds are provided for a particular purpose or program; (3) the funds contain restrictions or defined standards for their use or otherwise require approval for their use from a non-state entity; and (4) the funds are to be held by the state in a custodial capacity in order for the state to carry out the funds’ designated purpose. H.B. 04-1098 at § (3)(a). Today we have been asked to decide whether this definition comports with the Colorado constitution as well as our case law construing the relevant constitutional provisions.
We find that the definition of “custodial moneys” included in House Bill 04-1098 comports with constitutional principles insofar as it simply codifies some of those factors which we have already held to be relevant in determining whether particular moneys are custodial funds. See, e.g., Lamm I, 700 P.2d at 524 (defining custodial funds as “funds not generated by tax revenues which are given to the state for particular purposes and of which the state is a custodian or trustee to carry out the purposes for which the sums have been provided”).
However, we do not recognize the definition at issue today as an exhaustive list of factors which must be considered when evaluating whether funds are custodial. See note 4, supra. Rather, all grants of money to Colorado must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with due regard being given to all the circumstances surrounding the allocation, including, but not limited to, those factors listed in House Bill 04-1098 at section (3)(a). Given that the nature of federal grants has been a constantly evolving process which has always required us to evaluate each grant individually, and without knowing how future grants will be disbursed, we are unable to answer the first interrogatory with any degree of certainty. See Lamm III, 738 P.2d at 1159 (analyzing the nature of federal revenue sharing, categorical grant, and block grant programs). Thus, we decline to answer the first interrogatory.
III. Conclusion
On the basis of the analysis set forth above, we answer the interrogatories submitted to us as follows:
We decline to answer the interrogatory.
Yes, the General Assembly may constitutionally exclude from the definition of “custodial moneys” those moneys granted by the federal government to Colorado for the support of general or essential state government services of the type for which expenditures are made in the most recently approved annual general appropriation act, including but not limited to additional payments received by the state under the Jobs Act.
Justice COATS dissents.