The relationship between the city of Durango and La Plata County has languished under a pile of unsigned, redlined contracts.

In response to what city officials say is the county’s failure to negotiate a contract allowing the city to use the county jail in a timely manner, the city has struck up a more aggressive posture toward the county regarding the use of the Durango Emergency Communications Center. The two governments have long sought, but still don’t have, a formal contract laying out the financial obligations of the county for 911 dispatch services.

911 services will continue to operate, and all callers can expect a dispatcher to answer the phone and send an appropriate response, regardless of where they are in the county.

But that’s getting more expensive for county taxpayers.

City Manager José Madrigal informed County Manager Chuck Stevens on Jan. 8, at the direction of City Council, that the city would bill La Plata County monthly for 911 services at a 25% higher rate than previously laid out – that’s a $180,000 annual jump in the city’s revenue and the county’s costs.

Madrigal said the fee increase is necessary for a familiar reason: liability.

But fees for the county could spike again, Madrigal has warned, this time, because they can – and because the city says it needs to cover the cost of housing inmates arrested on municipal charges somewhere, now that it can’t use the county jail.

At the request of the county and other dispatch clients, city officials circulated a formal Client Services Agreement in the summer of 2024.

In August, Stevens informed city officials that the terms of that agreement were not acceptable to the county, and that further negotiations would be necessary, according to emails obtained under the Colorado Open Records Act. The other six users, which include fire and police agencies, signed the contract.

The proposed agreement formalized the current funding structure. Each of the seven user agencies pay a proportional amount of the operating costs based on their share of the total call volume. The budget is subsidized by revenue from a flat annual fee attached to every phone line in the state.

The La Plata County Sheriff’s Office has been responsible for, on average over the last three years, 31% of the calls that come through the dispatch center.

The CSA also significantly increased the clients’ contributions used to cover the city’s administrative work, such as human resources, finance and information technology services.

Although the La Plata County Sheriff’s Office uses the city-operated 911 dispatch as any other client does, the county also owns half the building in which dispatch operates.

“We looked at that client services agreement and we didn't see any recognition or benefits of ownership,” Stevens said.

The agreement did not address certain issues related to the property that concern only the city and the county, such as snow and trash removal, and the county wanted a single document that was comprehensive.

When January rolled around and no agreement had been reached, the city opted to increase fees.

“We're holding a lot of liability, and again, haven't been paid for our administrative costs,” Madrigal said. “… So the council said, at the very least, if we're going to do this month-to-month, we need to recoup those costs for sure.”

Without a contract dictating the terms of a client’s exit from the contract – the unsigned CSA mandated a minimum of four months’ notice – city officials fear the county could suddenly stop buying 911 services, and deprive the city of 31% of the dispatch center’s operating revenue at the drop of a hat.

Without a formal agreement, the city has every right to say “Here’s your new fee,” according to Madrigal.

The 911 negotiations became entangled with the two governments’ negotiations over use of the county jail this fall.

County Sheriff Sean Smith had informed the city that he would not hold inmates charged only with low-level offenses under municipal code, citing capacity and his own liability concerns. That launched a negotiation process as the governments tried, but failed, to agree on terms under which the city could use the county jail.

On Nov. 21, Madrigal explicitly linked the two negotiations together for the first time.

He informed Stevens in an email that the CSA was no longer on the table and would need to be replaced by a formal intergovernmental agreement. He also warned at the time that 911 dispatch fees would go up – but to compensate for costs associated with the jail debacle, and not 911 liability.

“The cost of services for 911 Dispatch Services for 2025 will be increased to offset any liabilities or expenses that the City may incur for a new IGA for Jail services, as these funds all come from the General Fund,” Madrigal wrote. “We must offset expenses so late in our budget process, which can only be done by increased revenue, and since we do not have an approved agreement, those expenses will be offset via 911 services in a new agreement.”

The two issues became further entangled in Madrigal’s Jan. 8 letter, in which he informed the county that the 25% increase in 911 fees could be avoided if the county extended the city’s ability to use the jail for 90 days by Jan. 10, or the two entities signed an IGA for use of the dispatch center.

Neither of those happened “due to commitments associated with the start of the new legislative session,” according to an email County Attorney Sheryl Rogers sent to city officials. Shortly thereafter, the city filed to lawsuits against the county (both of which it has since dismissed) effectively ending the negotiations.

On Feb. 5, the city retracted a quarterly invoice for 911 services. It will implement a monthly billing schedule with a 25% fee increase beginning in February, Madrigal said.

Those increased revenues will stay in the fund balance for 911 operations.

From the city’s perspective, dispatch once operated like a jointly owned service.

“We were a co-op,” Madrigal said. “We were all together, working together, and we were going to do it. And then one of the co-op members decides, ‘I don't want to be part of the co-op anymore.’”

The city seems to feel that the county dragged its feet on the 911 contract – and in doing so created an unfair double standard.

“The City does not believe we have received the same courtesy on the Jail IGA that the City gave the County for the 911 CSA as we continue to provide 911 services while the County no longer offers us Jail services,” Madrigal wrote in a Jan. 3 email to county officials.

Given what the city sees as the county’s tack to exit the 911 co-op, City Council intends to follow through on its threat to use dispatch revenue to offset the cost of enforcing municipal codes, as Madrigal referenced in the Nov. 21 email to Stevens.

The value of dispatch services is likely far higher than the cost to the city, Madrigal said. And council wants to explore what comparable dispatch services cost, and then charge the county for the value of the service, rather than the cost.

Stevens said the conclusion that the county wants to exit any sort of dispatch partnership is incorrect, and the two contract negotiations are not comparable.

For at least five years, the county has largely driven conversations over a formal agreement, Stevens said – including ensuring that the city was fairly compensate for its administrative labor – but that the city has never acted with a sense of urgency on the matter until it got wrapped into the jail negotiations.

“We've never expressed a desire to leave,” he said, sounding taken aback by the postulation.

With frustrations running high, neither city nor county officials seem eager to sit down at the negotiating table on either issue in the immediate future.

rschafir@durangoherald.com