Durango and La Plata County leaders met this week in a joint study session to hash out long-standing questions about funding, ownership and oversight of the Durango Emergency Communications Center.
Monday’s public session aimed to build momentum toward a new intergovernmental agreement, which hasn’t been updated in nearly a decade and has never been formalized.
It also sought to address the county’s concerns with the current pay structure – concerns that have led to the county’s refusal to pay its bills since January.
“It’s the elephant in the living room,” La Plata County Commissioner Marsha Porter-Norton said, referring to the county’s outstanding bills.
At the heart of the discussion was the Client Services Agreement – a contract developed in 2024 that outlines how agencies pay for their share of the 911 center’s services.
County officials have so far declined to sign the CSA so far, citing concerns about budget flexibility and language that could, in their view, obligate the county to pay fees set solely by the city. The other users, including fire and police agencies, signed the contract.
La Plata County Manager Chuck Stevens noted that the county is under financial strain and said the current language could commit the county to payments it hasn’t had time to review before budget season.
“If we were to get a bill late in the budget cycle, it would be very difficult for the county to try and react to that and then make an adjustment within our budget, especially when we're in periods of financial distress like the county is in now,” Stevens said.
Stevens and other county officials said they want a governance document that includes client service agencies’ voices in the budgeting process, which they said would mitigate the risk of surprise costs.
They also pointed out lingering questions about the ownership of the land and building that house the 911 center. The city of Durango and La Plata County have been co-owners since its establishment in 2007, but formal tenant and lease agreements have never been established – an additional barrier to signing the Client Services Agreement, Stevens said.
“We'd like to clear up the ownership of the land of the building, because there aren't any foundational documents that we can find,” Steven said. “As our organizations have grown, these informal agreements, or lack of agreements, probably aren't serving us well anymore.”
County officials have suggested they deserve a different type of agreement than other clients, given their status as co-owners of the facility.
City leaders said they were open to negotiating the CSA and creating co-ownership contracts to address the county’s concerns, but stressed that the overdue payments must still be made. They also questioned why the county had not communicated its concerns or its decision to withhold payments earlier in the year.
Councilor Jessika Buell said the city would not be able to waive the 20% administrative fee, which helps cover overhead costs for the center.
“We’re not trying to nickel and dime anyone,” said Porter-Norton, adding that the county intends to pay the requested sum.
The session concluded with a commitment from the county to resume payments. Both sides agreed to continue working toward revised agreements that clarify ownership, responsibilities and cost-sharing – and to maintain a productive partnership throughout the process.
“I’m fully committed to work with the county administration to get somewhere I think we can get to,” said City Manager José Madrigal. “It’s growing pains, and we’ll figure it out.”
jbowman@durangoherald.com
