Williamson County approves $900,000 legal budget for hospital transaction work amid debate over oversight

After lengthy public comment and more than an hour of debate, the Williamson County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 12 approved a $900,000 amendment to the county attorney budget to fund outside counsel advising the commission on a potential transaction involving Williamson Medical Center.

The measure, Resolution 1 26 17, passed 21–3 after commissioners questioned the scope of work, rates and how billing would be documented. Outside counsel Jesse Neal told commissioners he has been engaged to represent the commission’s interests, is working with the hospital’s counsel, and has billed roughly $86,000 to date. Neal said he tracks time in six‑minute increments and that work on a transaction draws on a team of paralegals, associates and partners.

Supporters said the engagement provides needed legal expertise for a complex, high‑stakes transaction and that the commission can terminate the relationship at any time. Commissioner Greg Sanford and others urged colleagues to trust the professional judgment of counsel and to allow an expert deal team to advise on legal, transactional and community‑impact issues.

Opponents and cautious members raised concerns about the proposed hourly rate and total budget. Commissioner Barb Sturgeon described $900 an hour as ‘‘difficult to justify’’ without comparables and asked for billing documentation and a breakdown of the work. Commissioner Mary Smith requested the invoice and a synopsis of tasks performed so far; Neal agreed the billing history is a public document and offered to provide narrative context and staffing detail.

The vote followed a failed effort to reduce the appropriation and a withdrawn amendment to lower the level to $200,000. Commissioners also debated whether the commission should independently initiate an RFP and hire a financial consultant in addition to legal counsel; a separate resolution to issue an RFP (Resolution 1 26 2) was later tabled for further discussion.

Chair and county staff clarified the fiscal mechanics: the budget amendment adds a line to permit payment of legal bills already incurred and anticipated over the fiscal year; commissioners were told the county expects to seek reimbursement from the hospital or an eventual purchaser if the transaction proceeds. The vote does not itself approve any sale; it funds counsel and authorizes the county to continue diligence and negotiations where appropriate.

The commission also considered, and rejected, a separate oversight measure (Resolution 1 26 1) that would have reaffirmed a 2011 policy stating the hospital was ‘‘not for sale’’ and required independent counsel reporting directly to the full commission; that resolution failed 6–18.

Next steps identified by commissioners and counsel include continued engagement with hospital counsel, provision of written billing detail to the commission on request and follow‑up discussion at committee meetings about whether the county should issue an RFP for a financial advisor or fairness opinion.