Ouray County officials, dispatchers and first responders used a July 9 work session to describe longstanding address‑naming and numbering problems that complicate 9‑1‑1 dispatch and emergency response, and they asked staff to develop a formal addressing policy and owner for the process.

Why it matters: West Region dispatcher and first‑responder witnesses told the board that inaccurate, out‑of‑sequence or duplicate addresses can delay response, create safety risks for emergency crews and complicate service delivery. Amber Lord, director at WestCo dispatch, said the center often must keep 9‑1‑1 callers on the line to verify location and that cell‑phone geolocation tools are helpful but not infallible.

What commissioners heard: GIS and Road & Bridge staff explained how legacy addressing—decades of ad‑hoc numbering, mail‑route‑based addresses, and differences between county and neighboring Montrose addressing—resulted in multiple address classes that do not follow a single consistent pattern. Chase (GIS) described a monthly workflow in which Road & Bridge collects GPS coordinates of driveway entrances, GIS calculates numbering and dispatch receives updated structure data; staff said the county has been correcting flagged errors but that roughly 200–300 problematic addresses remain to review.

Dispatch and responder examples: Fire and EMS representatives recounted calls in which crews arrived at the listed address and found the wrong structure or a missing house number, forcing responders to knock on doors at night and delaying care. A firefighter said crews rely on block‑number patterns when navigating rural roads, and misplaced numbers or duplicate addresses can cause responders to pass the correct location. Dispatch staff also noted that some mail‑delivery practices route addresses through Montrose, which can cause confusion when a caller identifies a Montrose mailing address that is physically in Ouray County.

Policy and signage next steps: Commissioners and staff agreed to draft a written addressing policy that clarifies assignment rules, numbering parity, ADU/subaddress rules and a process for readdressing legacy anomalies. Road & Bridge reported it can procure and issue reflective address signs; commissioners suggested standardizing orientation (vertical vs. horizontal) and exploring a public option for residents to purchase standardized reflective markers to improve visibility for responders. County staff (with consultant and neighboring jurisdictions’ examples) will draft policy language, identify a final process owner (GIS, Road & Bridge or other), and return to the board with proposed standards.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to collect sample policies (Montrose, San Miguel, others) and to work with Road & Bridge and 9‑1‑1 to prepare a draft addressing policy for future review; staff said they will coordinate with affected stakeholders and bring the draft back to the board.