Boone County council rejects adding in-house county attorney to agenda

A motion to add an in-house county attorney position to the Boone County Council agenda failed by roll call after debate over timing, costs and scope.

Councilmember Dan Lamar moved to place the proposed in-house counsel job description on old business for discussion and a vote, arguing the county could save money by hiring an in-house attorney instead of repeatedly paying outside counsel. “The reason I’m adding this is I think it’s important for us to do this,” Lamar said during the meeting. He said delaying the decision another month could cost the county “at least $10,000” for imminent-domain and other outside-counsel work.

Supporters cited potential savings in past outside counsel costs; opponents said they needed more documentation and time to benchmark salary and benefits. “I want to receive more documentation, with respect to the conversation and take it from there,” one member said before voting. County Attorney Beth Copeland had circulated a written cost analysis to council members after the packet was posted, but members said the information arrived too near the meeting to allow full review.

The motion was put to a roll-call vote. John (last name not specified) and Aaron (last name not specified) voted yes. Councilmembers Dustin Plunkett, Kevin (last name not specified), Sherry (last name not specified) and Dan Lamar voted no; one additional member voted no but did not give a name on the record. The tally was recorded as yes 2, no 5; the motion failed.

Council discussion touched on what legal work an in-house attorney would handle. Members asked whether the position would perform bond counsel work (bond issuer opinions typically come from specialized bond counsel) and whether zoning boards or advisory plan commissions would continue to receive separate legal representation. Officials said some bond and issuer-counsel tasks generally remain with outside firms and that whether APC/BZA work would move in-house would affect total cost estimates.

The motion to place the item on the agenda was the center of broader procedural dispute during the meeting over when and how agenda items and job descriptions are posted and whether draft materials provided shortly before meetings give members adequate time to review. Several members urged standardizing when requests and supporting materials are submitted to allow time for review and legal input.

The council did not take further action on the in-house counsel item at the meeting; proponents said they would reintroduce the matter once the compensation and benefits details and other documentation were provided.