Town attorney announces resignation; council approves budget amendment and directs ad for replacement, extends current counsel 60 days

Town Attorney Glenn Torsivia told the council on July 1 that he had given notice of his resignation and that his current contract would expire imminently, prompting council debate over whether to hire in‑house counsel or retain outside counsel.

The council voted to increase the legal services budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, approved staff authority to advertise for replacement legal services, and unanimously extended the outgoing firm’s contract for 60 days to ensure continuity while applicants are solicited.

Nut graf: The council’s action combined an immediate budget fix — to pay outstanding invoices and to cover legal services while a hiring decision is made — with direction to staff to solicit candidates and firms. Council members debated cost, the pros and cons of an in‑house model and the length and terms of any employment agreement before voting.

Key points and votes

Resignation and immediate timeline: Torsivia said he had provided notice and that his contract technically would expire the next day. He asked the council to consider a short extension for continuity. Torsivia also warned that a short interim arrangement is a “recipe for disaster” and said one reason he sought a multiyear term for an in‑house attorney was to provide stability if the town pursued that model.

Budget amendment: The council approved Resolution 2025‑50 (budget amendment) to allocate roughly $231,000 to cover current and projected legal expenditures through the end of the fiscal year, including unpaid bills and an in‑house transition option. The amendment also acknowledged outstanding legal fees above the existing budget.

Advertisement and hiring approach: After discussion the council voted to direct staff to advertise for town legal services—allowing responses from either an individual (in‑house candidate) or law firms — and to return with any qualified proposals. Council members emphasized that advertising should be broad enough to compare in‑house and outside‑firm options and that the county League of Cities and legal trade postings would be used.

Interim coverage: Torsivia agreed to remain available during a transition but said he would prefer a defined multi‑year contract rather than a short interim; the council voted to extend his contract for 60 days to provide coverage while the solicitation runs.

Council debate and fiscal numbers discussed

Council members debated whether an in‑house model would save money and whether the town should immediately create additional full‑time positions tied to an in‑house approach. Glenn and other staff offered estimates: the in‑house staffing and paralegal model was presented with an annualized cost estimate in the low‑to‑mid $300,000s after possible cost‑recovery offsets (staff presented a range and said estimated net costs would likely be roughly $330,000–$360,000 depending on recoveries and outside litigation needs). The budget amendment presented numbers for near‑term needs (roughly $231,000), unpaid bills (about $110,000), and an estimated carry‑forward cost if the town adopts an in‑house model (a roughly $97,000 remainder for the fiscal year under a particular staffing scenario).

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025‑50 (budget amendment to cover legal and related staffing changes): passed 4–1 (motion and tally recorded at the meeting). - Direction to advertise for legal services (individual or firm): passed 4–1. - Extension of outgoing counsel’s contract for 60 days: passed unanimously, 5–0.

Next steps

Staff will prepare the advertising materials (League of Cities and legal trade outlets were discussed), accept letters of interest and proposals, and return to the council with candidates and firms for interview and selection. The council directed staff to present a timeline and to arrange a special meeting if needed to consider offers; the outgoing counsel will maintain coverage while the search proceeds.

Ending

Council members stressed the need for due diligence in the solicitation and asked staff to expedite postings. Several members said they preferred an open process that would allow both in‑house candidates and outside firms to apply; others said a direct hire of a qualified candidate already working with the town would preserve institutional knowledge. The 60‑day extension was intended to preserve services during that evaluation.