Boone County council declines to add in-house legal counsel to agenda after debate over cost and timing

A motion to add consideration of an in-house county attorney position to today’s agenda failed after a roll-call vote at the Boone County Council meeting.

Supporters of placing the item back on the agenda argued the county could save money by hiring in-house counsel rather than continuing to pay outside firms for imminent-domain and other litigation work. A council member said outside counsel previously advised setting aside “at least $10,000” for eminent-domain matters and that delaying a hire could increase costs.

Opponents said the council lacked the information needed to approve a new position now, noting the job description, full compensation package and benefits benchmarking had only recently been circulated. Council members who urged delay said the council should wait for a full compensation study and review the position as part of the April agenda package.

The council president confirmed the job description had been shared with the auditor’s office on Friday morning and that some members asked for additional benchmarking before taking action.

After discussion the council took a roll-call vote on the motion to amend the agenda to add the in-house counsel position for discussion and approval. The motion failed on the roll call. The council recorded at least the following votes: John (Aye), Dustin (No), Kevin (No), Aaron (Aye), Sherry (No), Dan (No); one additional commissioner announced a “no” during the roll call. The motion did not carry.

County Attorney Beth Copeland had circulated a written cost-comparison analysis to the council, staff said; that document was provided to council members shortly before the meeting packet was finalized and was discussed during public comment. Supporters and the county attorney said the analysis estimates potential savings from converting some outside-contract work to a salaried in-house role, while opponents emphasized the need to see a full compensation and benefits package and to benchmark the position before committing.

Several council members suggested following the county’s existing process for new positions: submit a job description, benchmark the role in the county’s compensation study, and present the full salary-and-benefits package to the council in advance of a vote. One council member said that if the item remains a council priority, it could be scheduled as old business for the April meeting.

Public comment included calls both for the council to revisit the item promptly and for patience while staff and the compensation committee finish benchmarking.

The council did not adopt any formal direction to staff beyond standard follow-up; there was no vote to create the position.