Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Agreement Vaccination topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dolores County Board of Health approves IGA with Montezuma County for vaccination services

Dolores County Board of Health · May 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Dolores County's Board of Health voted April 6 to approve an intergovernmental agreement with the Montezuma County Board of Health to provide vaccination services. The agreement lists an estimated total cost of $7,875, allocates billing to Montezuma County, and prompted questions about a roughly 28.6% indirect-cost rate.

The Dolores County Board of Health on April 6 approved an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Montezuma County Board of Health to provide vaccination services in Dove Creek and surrounding areas.

Chair Julie moved to approve the IGA and the motion was seconded; after brief discussion the board voiced assent and the agreement was approved. The draft IGA lists estimated costs of $5,732 for immunization services, $498 for mileage and $1,645 in indirect costs, for a stated estimated total of $7,875. The agreement also specifies that Montezuma County will retain billing for insurance purposes.

Why it matters: The arrangement keeps routine vaccination services local to Dolores County residents while assigning administrative billing responsibility to Montezuma County. Board members said retaining local clinics was preferable to sending residents to another jurisdiction and that the structure should normally avoid direct billing to Dolores County.

Board discussion and concerns: Board member Linda said she was "a little shocked at that 28.6 on indirect costs," questioning the size of the indirect-rate line item. Chair Julie noted the IGA includes an explanation of what Montezuma is including in the indirect-cost calculation, and board members agreed to raise any revision requests promptly in future contract cycles.

Members also discussed scheduling and staffing arrangements. Linda reported she had heard Montezuma staff (Mallory) may move to a different clinic model ("Pathway plans") and change clinic days; members discussed whether half-day clinics would be adequate during busy periods such as school start and asked staff to coordinate schedules with Montezuma staff (Mallory, Laurel and Bobby).

Administrative details and next steps: The board clarified signature logistics—Dennis asked that Lorita be listed on the signature line rather than Veil—and asked staff to route the signed agreement to the person named in the packet (Tarnowski). Dennis also suggested prorating payments between the existing contract period and the new agreement so county payments would be current through the new contract; staff were asked to work with Laurel on the proration and billing details.

The board did not specify a roll-call vote record in the meeting transcript; after the motion and a second, members voiced assent and the chair closed the vote. The meeting adjourned shortly afterward.

The board packet and final signed IGA were expected to be processed by staff and routed to the indicated recipient for execution.