Members of the Park Hospital District Board engaged in a fiery and often contentious 75-minute meeting Tuesday morning in the conference room at Vert Coworking.
The board considered a new memorandum of understanding with UCHealth, the final invoice for its 2025 audit, and an amended 2026 budget.
The board ultimately approved the memorandum of understanding governing the flow of the district’s property tax revenue to UCHealth, but only after nearly 45 minutes of debate that exposed deep divisions over legal expenses, the district’s budget, its legal counsel, and the board’s relationship with UCHealth.
The new MOU addresses an issue that has remained unresolved since UCHealth assumed operations at Estes Park Health on Dec. 1, 2025: how the Park Hospital District will transfer the property tax revenue it collects to UCHealth while retaining enough money to cover its own administrative and legal expenses.
Under the affiliation agreement, the district was originally allowed to retain $200,000 annually for administrative expenses and was required to transfer the remainder of its property tax revenue to UCHealth. The district’s 2025 budget estimated annual property tax collections at $4.4 million.
The new MOU increases the district’s 2026 allowance by $225,000, bringing it to $425,000 to cover this year’s expenses. Beginning in 2027, the amount returns to $200,000, subject to an annual inflation adjustment.
Tuesday’s meeting followed an Aug. 4 special meeting that ended without action on the MOU after Treasurer Brigitte Foust raised concerns that the version included in the publicly posted board packet was not the version the board intended to consider.
Much of Tuesday’s discussion centered on whether the district should approve the MOU before receiving a final accounting of its legal expenses from Hall Render, the law firm that represented the district through the UCHealth affiliation and continues to handle other matters.
Foust said she needs a final figure from Hall Render before preparing an amended 2026 budget. The latest figure she had received was approximately $246,000, but she said she was waiting to learn whether that represented the firm’s final bill.
Foust also questioned whether the district could transfer tax revenue to UCHealth before adopting an amended budget reflecting the payment.
“We can’t transfer any tax anywhere to anyone without a budget,” Foust said.
Board members discussed an expedited timetable that could allow Foust to prepare an amended budget this week if Hall Render provides its final numbers. The district could then publish the required notice in time to consider the amended budget at its regular monthly meeting Aug. 26 and transfer the tax revenue to UCHealth by the end of August.
Director Tom Leigh argued the board should delay approval until it better understands its legal obligations, final legal expenses, and the MOU’s effect on the district’s budget.
“We can’t sign an agreement based on our best guess,” Leigh said.
Leigh also questioned whether provisions of the 2025 affiliation agreement and the new MOU comply with Colorado law governing special districts. He said an attorney specializing in Title 32 special district law should independently review the documents.
Leigh sharply criticized some of the legal advice the district has received from Hall Render, calling it “specious and inaccurate.”
“I don’t trust their advice one little bit,” he said.
He questioned whether the board properly authorized legal expenses that substantially exceeded the budgeted amount and argued the district should have amended its budget when expenses began escalating last year. He called approval of the MOU without additional legal and financial review “reckless and irresponsible.”
Leigh also raised concerns about what he described as an “informational gradient” among board members, suggesting Chair Cory Workman and Vice Chair Steve Alper had access to information that was not being shared equally with the rest of the board.
Alper defended both the affiliation agreement and the legal advice the district received. He said the board hired attorneys to guide members through complex legal documents.
“To expect that board members are going to understand every legal term, I think, is unrealistic, and that’s why we have legal counsel to help us with this,” Alper said.
The disagreement escalated into a heated exchange over Leigh’s continued criticism of the UCHealth affiliation. Leigh asked Alper to lower his voice, prompting Alper to respond in an exaggerated whisper before accusing Leigh of coming into a previous meeting “screaming.”
Leigh said there was “no place for personal attacks.”
“I’m not doing a personal attack, Tom,” Alper responded.
Alper then accused Leigh of repeatedly attempting to undermine an agreement approved by the board and said he believed Leigh’s opposition was driven by a personal agenda.
“You have been trying to undermine this decision from the get-go,” Alper said. “Virtually every meeting we’re at, you try to undermine this decision.”
Leigh rejected that characterization and said his responsibility is not to support a previous board decision simply because a majority approved it.
“My responsibility, my fiduciary duty, is not to this board,” Leigh said. “It’s to the people of Estes Park.”
Leigh said he does not seek to undo the affiliation but believes portions of the agreement should be reconsidered if they conflict with state law or do not adequately protect taxpayers.
“The idea that this agreement is infallible just because it was approved by the previous board doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” Leigh said. “I don’t want to trash the agreement, but I do think that this agreement could be and should be amended because I don’t think it’s lawful in some areas, and I think that UCHealth should be willing to discuss that with us.”
Secretary Janet Zeschin also criticized what she described as Leigh’s repeated focus on the affiliation agreement, saying the continuing disagreements have prevented the board from moving forward.
“I personally would like to get some forward movement on something,” Zeschin said, adding that the board had been “held stagnant” by continuing disputes over the agreement.
Alper defended the decision to affiliate with UCHealth. He said he believes Estes Park Health would have faced serious financial and staffing challenges had the affiliation not occurred and argued that the community now has access to the resources of Colorado’s largest health care system.
He characterized 2026 as a difficult transition year in which the district must resolve outstanding legal bills, reconcile its budget, address the custody of its historical special district records, and complete other work remaining from the transfer of hospital operations.
Board discusses changing legal counsel
The debate also reopened a broader question about who should provide legal counsel to the district.
Leigh has repeatedly called for the board to retain an attorney specializing in Colorado special district law and again asked Tuesday for an independent review of the MOU.
“I think we need a special district attorney to review this MOU,” Leigh said.
Alper reminded board members that they previously passed a motion not to revisit the question of hiring a special district attorney during 2026. He suggested another option Tuesday: accelerating the district’s planned transition to new general counsel with special district expertise rather than hiring an additional attorney solely to review the affiliation agreement.
The board eventually voted to approve the MOU, with Leigh voting no.
Following the vote, board members agreed that their immediate priority is to obtain Hall Render’s final billing information so Foust can prepare the amended 2026 budget.
The board also approved payment of Eide Bailly’s $26,250 final invoice for the district’s 2025 audit.
During the financial update, Foust said the district has nearly exhausted the original $200,000 it was allowed to retain for 2026 expenses. She reported a remaining balance of approximately $2,299 and said both the final legal expenses and the tax transfer to UCHealth will have to be incorporated into the amended budget.
Custody of Park Hospital records
Beyond the MOU and budget dispute, the board also confronted another unresolved issue stemming from the UCHealth transition: custody and accessibility of decades of Park Hospital District records.
Board members said significant gaps appear to exist in historical election, legal, financial, and other district records.
District Administrator Heather Drees said she is comparing the records currently in the district’s possession with Colorado’s permanent retention requirements to identify missing documents. If required records cannot be located, she said the district can document the gaps and notify the Colorado State Archives.
Board members also discussed digitizing records and making frequently requested documents — including policies, bylaws, and financial reports — easier for the public to find on the district’s website.
Before the meeting ended, the conversation returned to the district’s legal representation.
Board members discussed obtaining updated proposals from law firms with special district expertise and potentially transitioning general counsel work away from Hall Render earlier than previously planned, while allowing Hall Render to complete matters already underway.
Leigh asked that the board reconsider hiring special district counsel at its next meeting. Alper reiterated that the board previously voted not to revisit the issue this year, but said an alternative could be to accelerate the transition to one of the firms already under consideration for future general counsel work.
The Park Hospital District Board is scheduled to hold its next regular meeting Wednesday, Aug. 26, at 5:30 p.m. at Estes Park Town Hall. The amended 2026 budget is expected to be among the issues considered.
Foust said the board also needs a policy requiring legal work and its scope to be approved before additional fees are incurred.
“All legal fees need to be approved,” Foust said. “We should have a policy.”