San Miguel County presses towns for binding assurances on regional wastewater authority; talks continue

San Miguel County commissioners pressed Mountain Village and Telluride officials on May 14 for binding reassurances about governance, service area and user rates for a proposed regional wastewater treatment authority tied to a potential new plant in unincorporated county land.

Commissioners said the county needs three things in writing before giving land‑use concessions being negotiated with the property owners: (1) that county septic (septage) from across San Miguel County will be accepted at the new plant at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate, (2) that founding service boundaries will include the larger geographic area shown in the towns' March materials (to avoid repeated negotiations when unincorporated areas seek service), and (3) that unincorporated‑area users will not be priced out of service by higher outside‑user rates. The county also requested a voting seat on the authority board in exchange for a financial contribution; staff said the county offered an amount equivalent to 5% of general fund reserves (about $1.3 million), which the towns said would not justify a voting seat given their large capital contributions.

Mountain Village and Telluride representatives said many governance, boundary and rate questions will be decided by the authority once it exists. They emphasized that the authority is a separate governmental entity created by intergovernmental agreement and that binding rate commitments require a formal rate study performed after construction costs, system ownership and the authority's scope are known. Mountain Village assistant town attorney Haley Carmer said that while the towns and county should discuss these issues in parallel with land‑use steps, "we're putting the cart before the horse a little bit" on rate caps because a rate study and ownership decisions happen after the authority is formed.

Town and county staff and elected officials debated timing. Mountain Village said its purchase and subdivision process for the proposed plant parcel requires diligence timelines in June; county leaders said they were open to parallel processing but asked for written assurances or a near‑term negotiating path. Commissioners and public commenters from deed‑restricted neighborhoods repeatedly asked that rate and equity protections be documented so those households are not driven off by higher utility costs. Scott Pearson, mayor pro tem of Mountain Village, urged trust and a cooperative approach: "I would just ask that when you're considering whether to approve this MOU ... that you think about that spirit and approach it with the spirit of generosity, of good faith, of goodwill, and of trust," he said.

Public commenters from Lawson Hill, Aldisaro and Last Dollar subdivisions urged the county to secure protections for unincorporated residents and to retain a role in governance or in binding agreements. Commissioners and town officials agreed to continue staff‑level work and convene joint meetings of staff and elected officials to draft a path forward. The counties and towns proceeded to executive session for negotiation strategy; no final agreement was reached at the public meeting.

Next steps: commissioners directed staff to pursue an intergovernmental framework and asked county and town staff to develop proposed language (memo or MOU) that could provide the county assurances about septage acceptance, founding service area and protections for existing deed‑restricted users. Town and county staff will coordinate schedules and return with proposals.