Levy County commissioners advance legal services proposal for interview amid cost concerns

Levy County commissioners voted to advance the single proposer for RFP 2025‑012 (county legal services) to an interview scheduled for April 7, after an extended discussion about hours, extra fees and budget impacts.

County staff told commissioners the proposer offered two pricing options: a flat fee of $20,000 a month for 50 hours of service or an 'unlimited' option advertised at $35,000 a month. "Right now, they're planning to give you 50 hours a month, which is that $20,000 a month rate," said Mary Ellen (county staff), and the firm "is willing to be flexible" on service levels.

Why it matters: commissioners said the county is carrying a backlog of legal projects (staff reported 22 projects pending and 36 hours used so far in March) and needs more capacity to clear work off county staff desks. At the same time, staff noted the fiscal implications of the higher option: the $35,000 figure projects to roughly $440,000 a year, compared with the prior staff attorney salary and benefits of $199,599.55. "If you're moving to the $35,000 market, we're looking at about $440,000 a year, so more than double," Mary Ellen said, adding that the money is "not in the legal budget" and might require using reserves.

Commission debate focused on value and structure. Commissioner Charlie Kennedy asked whether the county would actually get more work done with the 50‑hour option: "How are we getting any more done with them only doing 50 hours of work?" Commissioners repeatedly raised the possibility of securing paralegal support to handle routine contract reviews and day‑to‑day matters so senior attorneys' hours are reserved for substantive legal work. "Maybe they could just hire a special person, a special paralegal for us," said Commissioner Desiree Mills.

Staff highlighted that certain services would be billed as add‑ons beyond the flat fee: planning and development meetings, ordinance rewrites and canvassing board attendance are examples that could generate extra charges. Staff cited examples used in the packet: canvassing board attendance could add about $16,000, and the annual required review of special assessments could add roughly $10,000 if not included in the base scope.

A formal motion to advance the proposal to interview was made and seconded; the board voted in favor. Commissioners were asked to fill out the provided 100‑point evaluation forms based on the written proposal and to prepare questions for the April 7 interview, where commissioners will have the opportunity to clarify how many hours "unlimited" would actually mean and whether paralegal coverage could be assured without incurring excessive additional fees.

What happens next: the proposer will appear for interviews at the April 7 meeting (staff described a recess procedure so candidate time in the public audience would not be billed), after which the board may direct the manager to finalize a contract if commissioners decide to do so.

Budget context and next steps: staff emphasized that any move to the higher monthly contract would require a budget plan; options include reducing other legal line items, reallocating funds across departments that use county counsel, or drawing from reserves. Commissioners also discussed alternative models, including contracting one firm for county counsel while retaining a separate land‑use attorney to handle evening planning and zoning meetings.

Public comment: journalist Terry Witt asked about prior payments and whether the county had paid $16,000 previously; staff said NGN had charged $16,000/month historically and the fee rose to $20,000 when the firm transitioned to the current contractor. The board adjourned after closing public comment.