Summit County attorney urges renegotiation of legal-fee arrangements with special districts as workload rises

Margaret, the Summit County Attorney, told the county council that statutory duties require the office to serve as public prosecutor and civil adviser to the county but do not obligate it to represent special service districts. She said the office currently provides on-demand legal services to many districts and "we seem to be the only county attorney's office that is providing full legal service on demand to special service districts." She described the arrangement as unsustainable and said she has begun to negotiate with districts that are seeking to change their agreements.

Margaret cited High Valley Transit as an example. "Under the current contract, High Valley Transit is paying an annual flat fee of $170,000 per year for all of the services listed on that slide, including legal," she said, and added that some districts pay a flat $40,000 while many pay nothing despite receiving legal advice. Staff analysis of a three-month sample showed the civil division averaged about 82 hours per month on district matters; Margaret said Dave Thomas's personal average was about 40 hours per month for district work.

Given those demands, Margaret asked whether the council wants the county attorney's office to continue representing districts under current terms. Her suggested options included negotiating reasonable remittances, directing some remittances into a dedicated fund the attorney could use for outside counsel or staffing, moving some districts to the private market for counsel, or creating a hybrid approach where dependent districts remain with the county and independent districts choose their counsel.

Finance staff cautioned on accounting rules. Matt Lovett said, "Fees are considered a revenue, so they don't go into a specific silo. They have to be reported as fee revenue," and recommended reporting options that would ensure compliance while enabling the attorney's office to access funds for salaries, bonuses or outside counsel when appropriate.

Council members asked staff to return with concrete proposals. Several councilors emphasized the difference between compensation and workload, noting that addressing workload (hiring FTEs or contracting outside help) would affect compensation pressures. The council asked Margaret and staff to draft one or more fee-structure proposals for council consideration and to consult with affected districts before returning with recommended terms.

The council did not take a final vote on policy at the meeting; members asked for follow-up proposals and analysis.