PUEBLO WEST, Colo. — Carl Coomley, general counsel for the district, briefed the board Aug. 25 on legal services provided by the Deaton Davis firm, 2024–25 expenditures by cost center and the tradeoffs between retaining outside counsel and hiring an in‑house attorney.

Coomley summarized a memorandum showing work by cost center and said outside counsel’s travel and in‑person presence create value by allowing face-to-face meetings with staff and the board. “I will tell you honestly that I dislike, virtual meetings just because I you don't have a read of the room,” Coomley said, explaining why he travels for regular meetings and joint staff sessions. He described an effort to reduce turnaround time for drafting requests and investigative work.

Board members discussed the line-item showing board-related legal expense, which Coomley said covers meeting time and legal research on board responsibilities and conflicts of interest; he estimated district legal spending around $300,000 annually based on recent years’ work and noted the firm’s deep bench across specialties (HR, real estate, election, water) that the district can draw on.

The conversation compared cost scenarios: an in‑house general counsel with paralegal support could cost an estimated $250,000–$300,000 per year with benefits, while outside counsel provides subject-matter specialists who can be engaged as needed. Coomley noted Deaton Davis lawyers’ decades of experience and said the firm is trying to improve timeliness of drafting and responses.

Board members asked about access to counsel and chain-of-command for requests; Coomley said senior management (department heads and the district manager) commonly contact him and that he tries to group travel and meetings to minimize billable travel time. He also described routine weekly coordination meetings (“Tuesdays with Carl”) with staff to consolidate issues and control costs.

Why it matters: legal services represent a material ongoing expense for the district and affect turnaround on personnel matters, contracts and land transactions. The board discussed the merits of in‑house counsel versus the current outside‑firm arrangement and asked staff to present comparative cost estimates in future budget discussions.

Ending: staff and counsel agreed to provide additional comparative information about in‑house versus external counsel and to continue improving response times and invoice transparency.