La Plata County’s deadline for an intergovernmental agreement for jail services with the city of Durango has come and gone, but neither party has a tangible mutual agreement.
City officials are under the impression the county isn’t negotiating in good faith.
In an attempt to move the needle, Durango City Council issued an ultimatum to La Plata County on Tuesday: temporarily extend an agreement to house municipal inmates at the county jail or begin paying administrative fees for 911 services while the matter is decided in court.
City Attorney Mark Morgan said the county is the only organization in the area that uses 911 services but doesn’t have a contract for those services with the city. The city picks up most of the tab for operating the 911 center.
He said the county approached the city before he was hired in March 2023 about creating a formal agreement or service contract for 911 services. The city prepared a resolution for a contract that said the city operates emergency communications and will collect fees based on emergency calls in the county. But negotiations faltered after the county told the city it would not sign a service contract because it has an ownership interest in the building.
City Manager José Madrigal said the fees proposed Tuesday would be charged in lieu of a 911 service contract that covers liabilities.
Durango Emergency Communications, formerly Durango/La Plata Emergency Communications, is a city department, although it co-owns the emergency communications building in Bodo Park with La Plata County and splits the space.
City Council voted 4-1 on Tuesday to allow the city attorney to take the jail dispute to court and to allow the city manager to charge administrative fees for providing 911 services without a contract.
But all of that will be suspended if the county agrees to a 90-day extension of a decades-old IGA jail agreement.
Councilor Olivier Bosmans voted against the ultimatum.
County Manager Chuck Stevens said in an interview on Wednesday the county remains committed to developing a mutually acceptable agreement for both jail and 911 services.
But extending the IGA isn’t an option because it’s already been terminated, he said.
He said reasonable people can disagree while maintaining respectful relationships. But having an outside party such as a judge provide clarity might be necessary to move negotiations forward.
He declined to say what needs to happen in order for the city and the county to hash out its differences, saying he doesn’t want to negotiate with the city in the press. He said the city and the county have common interests when it comes to serving their constituents.
The city’s ultimatum is the latest wrinkle in a five-month dispute about housing municipal offenders at the La Plata County Jail.
The dispute kicked off Aug. 1 when Sheriff Sean Smith sent a letter to Durango Police Chief Brice Current and other municipalities informing them the jail could no longer accept new arrests or inmates sentenced on municipal charges, citing population growth at the jail.
The policy was not enforced as jail population numbers fell. But the county remained firm in its desire to create a new IGA with Durango.
In September, commissioners directed county staff members to pursue a new IGA with the city. In November, commissioners voted to terminate the old IGA, giving the city 30 days to negotiate a new agreement before the old one was discontinued.
Morgan says the sheriff does not have the discretion to reject inmates sentenced by a judge, per state law.
“The state law says that the sheriff of the county is ... required to take any inmate that has been duly committed to serve time by a judge,” he said.
City Council’s decision on Tuesday comes about two weeks after the jail contract expired and after recent meetings between city and county officials proved fruitless, according to city officials.
“It feels like there’s not a goodwill of wanting to continue to have negotiations,” Madrigal said in an interview with The Durango Herald. “And from our side, our perspective, we’re continuing to provide 911 services without a contract.”
He said the city has not threatened to withhold 911 emergency services, nor would it, but noted the county has discontinued jail services for the city’s municipal inmates.
“We’re trying to find a way to get that back. And, you know, we hope that this is a way that the county will come back to the table,” he said.
If implemented, the city would charge the county a 25% fee based on monthly 911 calls for service and associated costs in the county.
Durango Mayor Jessika Buell said on Tuesday that City Council is doing what is best for the community.
She said after recent meetings with the county, she was hopeful the two governments were moving toward a solution. But in an email sent Jan. 3, the county “reneged” on agreed upon dates and a path forward, she said.
Madrigal said he and Buell met with County Manager Chuck Stevens and Commissioner Matt Salka on Dec. 26, and met with them again on Dec. 30, this time including Sheriff Smith and city and county attorneys, to see if an agreement could be reached.
City officials left the Dec. 30 meeting feeling optimistic and that they might have an IGA ready for council’s consideration by the Tuesday meeting, Madrigal said. But then they were told in an email from the county that Jan. 21 would be a more workable deadline for a new IGA. The county then said last week that that date was “overly ambitious,” yet an alternative date was not proposed.
“It’s concerning to me that there’s no accountability going forward to the date of services for the IGA,” Buell said at the council meeting Tuesday. “I feel like our jail IGA is important for our community safety, for the benefit of our community. And I think it’s a detriment to the city and the county that we can’t come to an agreement.”
She said she remains hopeful the county will agree to a 90-day extension of the 2024 IGA. But if it doesn’t, it’s important the city demonstrates it is trying to work with the county.
Stevens said he doesn’t know how to respond to the use of 911 administrative fees as a tool for getting the county “back to the table” – the county is still at the table.
The county’s email saying that Jan. 21 was too ambitious of a date to reach an agreement was not meant as a threat or an indication the county can’t or won’t negotiate, he said.
cburney@durangoherald.com
