“My intent is to represent the people of Estes Park as best I can, and and to make sure that we are doing everything that we are lawfully supposed to be doing,” said Park Hospital Director Tom Leigh, as he pressed fellow board members for clarity, transparency, and accountability Wednesday evenng.
Leigh revisited disputes over legal expenses, access to law firm invoices, the district’s legal counsel, and addressed the way disagreements among directors have been recorded in official meeting minutes.
The sometimes tense exchanges during the district’s Aug. 26 regular meeting exposed divisions between board members that have persisted through the district’s transition from operating Estes Park Health to its new role following the Dec. 1, 2025, acquisition by UCHealth.
Since the acquisition, the mission of the publicly elected board has effectively been reduced to collecting property tax revenue and passing it to UCHealth for the next 50 years. The board no longer has any policy authority over hospital operations.
As the meeting began, Leigh asked to add several issues to the agenda, including rescission of the revised memorandum of understanding approved on Aug. 18, which he characterized as an unauthorized legal expenditure, compliance with state budget and open meetings laws, the district’s relationship with UCHealth, legal engagement procedures, and access to district records.
Vice Chair Steve Alper moved to defer the issues Leigh raised to a special meeting rather than add them to Wednesday’s agenda. The board agreed.
Tensions between members quickly resurfaced when the board turned to approval of minutes from seven special meetings dating to June. Leigh questioned why some minutes had not been presented for approval until nearly three months after the meetings.
“I think that there should be a policy that the minutes be done within, I don’t know, three to seven days,” Leigh said.
The Park Hospital Board has historically approved minutes at regular monthly meetings rather than special meetings, and the board has not held a regular meeting since June 3.
Leigh also objected to language in the July 14 and Aug. 18 minutes describing criticism directed toward him by other directors and a member of the public. He said official minutes should record board actions rather than what he characterized as “editorial commentary” and “derogatory remarks.”
Among the passages he objected to was language saying his previous challenges to board actions were disruptive, a public comment by Gail Cozette suggesting he consider resigning, and a statement that his discussions were negatively affecting the board’s ability to function.
“That kind of editorializing has no place in the minutes,” Leigh said.
He raised a similar objection to the Aug. 18 minutes, which included Alper’s criticism that Leigh’s repeated opposition to the affiliation was preventing the board from moving forward.
“Again, that is not an action,” Leigh said. “That is commentary, editorializing, and that should be removed.”
The board removed the July 14 and Aug. 18 minutes from the consent agenda for further review and approved the remaining five sets. Later in the meeting, during an oppotunity for public comment, Cozette addressed the board to express concern that her statements as a concerned citizen and constituent might be removed from the public record.
Legal bills remain a point of contention
The sharpest disagreement centered on Hall Render, the law firm that represented the district through its affiliation with UCHealth and has continued handling legal work for the district.
Leigh reiterated his objection to the amended memorandum of understanding the board approved Aug. 18, arguing that the board never authorized development of the agreement and had not properly authorized legal expenses that helped create the need for additional administrative funding.
“I think it’s unlawful,” Leigh said.
Leigh emphasized that he was referring to what he believes are violations of civil, administrative, or special district requirements and was not alleging criminal conduct.
Director Janet Zeschin expressed concern that Leigh’s remarks about Hall Render were libelous, defamatory, and inappropriate.
The amended MOU allows the district to retain an additional $225,000 in 2026 from property tax revenue it otherwise would remit to UCHealth, increasing the district’s administrative allowance from $200,000 to $425,000 for the year.
Leigh alleged Hall Render had a conflict of interest in reviewing an agreement that would provide the district with additional money that could be used to pay the firm’s outstanding legal bills. He argued the MOU and other questions surrounding the district’s transition should have been reviewed by an independent attorney specializing in Colorado special district law.
“I think this board needs a special district attorney desperately,” Leigh said.
Alper pushed back, saying the amended MOU was unfinished work stemming from the UCHealth affiliation and was written by UCHealth and reviewed by the district’s attorneys. He also acknowledged that the board could have done a better job overseeing legal spending during the transition.
“In hindsight, the board — and that’s all of us — could have done a better job in managing that, and we didn’t,” Alper said.
Alper said Hall Render continued completing work associated with the affiliation after Dec. 1 under what amounted to a standing direction to “just get it done.”
Leigh countered that the issue was not whether attorneys had worked on the transaction but whether the elected board had properly authorized the expenditures. He also challenged the argument that spending authority previously held by the Estes Park Health CEO carried over to the district board and its chair after UCHealth assumed hospital operations.
“We have no CEO,” Leigh said.
The board then passed Resolution 2026-006 to adopt the proposed supplemental budget and appropriation amending the 2026 budget, appropriating an additional $250,000 for administrative expenditures, and reducing the UCHealth tax transfer appropriation by the same amount. The Park Hospital District expects to collect $4,650,132 from property owners in 2026.
Directors acknowledge oversight problems
Despite disagreement over whether previous expenditures were properly authorized, directors found common ground on the need to tighten procedures.
Treasurer Brigitte Foust said the district needs a formal policy requiring board authorization of legal work and regular reports on spending and the scope of legal assignments.
“The legal spending ran far beyond expectations,” Foust said. “That happened because work was done without oversight. We didn’t really do good oversight and see what was spent, and we don’t want this pattern to happen again.”
In her report on the district’s financial position, Foust said she anticipates approximately $20,000 in additional legal expenses through the remainder of 2026, with some retirement-plan legal costs being paid by the retirement plans rather than the district.
Leigh questioned whether $20,000 would be sufficient, noting Hall Render bills by the hour and its engagement agreement contains no effective cap on spending.
A Nov. 10, 2025, engagement letter included in the board packet lists the law firm’s rates of $350 per hour for associates, $495 for partners, and $160 for paraprofessionals and states that “fees and costs for the Services are not entirely predictable.”
Alper agreed the board needed stronger controls to contain costs.
“I’ll own up to it,” he said. “That was something that I could have been more aware of during the past several months, and we didn’t do it.”
Alper attempted to make a motion to pay Hall Render’s outstanding bills, saying the firm had provided services in good faith and had been waiting for payment. Foust stopped the action, noting approval of the invoices was not listed on the posted agenda and the board could not act on the fees.
Chair Cory Workman agreed the matter would need to be properly noticed and put on the agenda for a future meeting.
Financial report shows overspending
The district’s balance sheet for May, June, and July 2026 shows total assets of $26,317,676.00, consisting primarily of land and buildings owned by the district, and administrative spending through August 22, 2026, of $186,265.37.
Legal invoices received to date total $260,939.95, consisting of $42,512.50 paid and $218,427.45 in outstanding legal fee obligations. Compared to the original legal appropriation of $50,000, this represents an over-budget variance of $210,939.95, or 421.8%.
Foust told the board that with anticipated administrative expenses through the end of 2026, the district will have only $1,184.63 remaining, which represents a very small administrative reserve for a special district.
Where are the invoices?
Leigh also pressed the board about his repeated requests for access to Hall Render’s detailed invoices.
Workman said the district has summaries showing legal costs by month and category but did not have all of the most recent detailed invoices available for review Wednesday.
“I don’t want a breakdown of the legal fees that’s done by somebody else,” Leigh said. “I want the invoices.”
Leigh said he previously requestd to inspect paper copies of invoices and was “supervised” by the district’s administrative assistant while doing so. He argued all directors should have unrestricted access to digital copies.
“This board should be reviewing every invoice,” Leigh said.
Workman said detailed invoices had been requested.
“As soon as we have them, we can start to review,” Workman said. “At this point, I don’t have a timeline for you.”
Alper said his understanding was that the district had received itemized invoices through approximately June and said he was not aware Hall Render was intentionally withholding documents.
Board begins search for new legal counsel
Despite the disagreement over Hall Render, the board took a significant step toward changing law firms.
Foust said the district had reached a point where it needed new processes and independent district counsel.
“We need an attorney who works within our appropriations, communicatively with all board members, and protects the district’s statutory compliance and the taxpayer,” she said.
The board voted to direct Workman and the district’s administrative assistant to begin soliciting qualifications and proposals from law firms interested in serving as the Park Hospital District’s general counsel.
The motion passed with three votes in favor, one opposed and one abstention.
Hall Render will remain in place for now to finish active work, including matters involving the district’s retirement plan and an outstanding Colorado Open Records Act request.
The board also agreed it needs formal procedures governing authorization of legal services, changes in the scope of legal work and approval of invoices.
District records raise another access question
Leigh extended his concerns about access and accountability to the district’s historical records, many of which remain at Estes Valley Medical Center.
Workman said the records are secured “under double lock and key” and UCHealth has asked the district to take possession of them.
Leigh said directors need ready access not only to historical records but also to governance, financial, affiliation, property, regulatory and legal documents needed to perform their oversight responsibilities.
“The pressing question I have is, what’s the end game to all your inquiries?” Alper asked. “What are you trying to accomplish by all this?”
“My only interest is oversight, and the idea that somehow my wanting to look at our historical records is problematic is just ridiculous. Does somebody have something to hide?” Leigh said.
The district will explore secure storage options and bring the issue back to the board in an upcoming meeting.
The board also expects to return to many of the issues Leigh sought to add to Wednesday’s agenda.
Workman said a special meeting will be scheduled soon to address the deferred items, including legal expenditures, budget and open meetings law compliance, legal engagement procedures, the district’s relationship with UCHealth, and the duties and authority of the board as it continues defining its post-hospital role.