77B Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Trustees of Columbia Funds Series Trust I

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund and Columbia Small Value
Fund I, (each a series of Columbia Funds Series Trust I and hereafter
collectively referred to as the "Funds") as of and for the year
ended June 30, 2008, in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), we considered the
Funds' internal control over financial reporting, including controls
over safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Funds internal control over financial reporting.  Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Funds' internal
control over financial reporting.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting.  In
fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management
are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  A fund's internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.  A fund's internal control over financial
reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to
the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately
and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of
the fund; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that
receipts and expenditures of the fund are being made only in accordance
with authorizations of management and trustees of the fund; and (3)
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection
of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a fund's assets that
could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial
reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.  Also, projections of
any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk
that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or
that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

A deficiency in internal control over financial reporting exists when the
design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees,
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent
or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  A material weakness is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a
material misstatement of the Funds annual or interim financial statements
will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Our consideration of the Funds' internal control over financial reporting
was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not
necessarily disclose all deficiencies in internal control over financial
reporting that might be material weaknesses under standards established by
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  However,
we noted no deficiencies in the Funds' internal control over financial
reporting and its operation, including controls over safeguarding
securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above
as of June 30, 2008.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management
and the Board of Trustees and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
August 22, 2008



77E Legal Proceedings Note

On February 9, 2005, Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. (which has
since merged into Banc of America Capital Management, LLC (now named
Columbia Management Advisors, LLC)) ("Columbia") and Columbia Funds
Distributor, Inc. (which has been renamed Columbia Management
Distributors, Inc.) (the "Distributor") (collectively, the "Columbia
Group") entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York
Attorney General ("NYAG") (the "NYAG Settlement") and consented to the
entry of a cease-and-desist order by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") (the "SEC Order") on matters relating
to mutual fund trading.

Under the terms of the SEC Order, the Columbia Group agreed, among
other things, to: pay $70 million in disgorgement and $70 million in
civil money penalties; cease and desist from violations of the antifraud
provisions and certain other provisions of the federal securities laws;
maintain certain compliance and ethics oversight structures; retain an
independent consultant to review the Columbia Group's applicable
supervisory, compliance, control and other policies and procedures; and
retain an independent distribution consultant (see below). The Columbia
Funds have also voluntarily undertaken to implement certain governance
measures designed to maintain the independence of their boards of
trustees. The NYAG Settlement also, among other things, requires Columbia
and its affiliates to reduce management fees for certain Columbia Funds
(including the former Nations Funds) and other mutual funds collectively
by $32 million per year for five years, for a projected total of $160
million in management fee reductions.

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the SEC Order, the $140 million
in settlement amounts described above is being distributed in accordance
with a distribution plan that was developed by an independent
distribution consultant and approved by the SEC on April 6, 2007.
Distributions under the distribution plan began in late June 2007.

A copy of the SEC Order is available on the SEC website at
http://www.sec.gov. A copy of the NYAG Settlement is available as part of
the Bank of America Corporation Form 8-K filing on February 10, 2005.
In connection with the events described above, various parties have filed
suit against certain funds, the Trustees of the Columbia Funds, FleetBoston
Financial Corporation and its affiliated entities and/or Bank of
America and its affiliated entities.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred these cases and cases against other mutual fund companies based
on similar allegations to the United States District Court in Maryland for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings (the ''MDL'').
Subsequently, additional related cases were transferred to the MDL. On
September 29, 2004, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed amended and consolidated
complaints. One of these amended complaints is a putative class action that
includes claims under the federal securities laws and state common law, and
that names Columbia, the Distributor, the Trustees of the Columbia Funds,
Bank of America Corporation and others as defendants. Another of the amended
complaints is a derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Columbia Funds
that asserts claims under federal securities laws and state common law.

On February 25, 2005, Columbia and other defendants filed motions to dismiss
the claims in the pending cases.  On March 1, 2006, for reasons stated in the
court's memoranda dated November 3, 2005, the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss.  The court dismissed all of the class action claims
pending against the Columbia Funds Trusts.  As to Columbia and the Distributor,
the claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the claims under Sections 34(b)
and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA") and the state law
claims were dismissed.  The claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under Section 36(b) of the ICA were
not dismissed.

On March 21, 2005, a purported class action was filed in Massachusetts state
court alleging that certain conduct, including market timing, entitled Class B
shareholders in certain Columbia funds to an exemption from contingent
deferred sales charges upon early redemption ("the CDSC Lawsuit"). The CDSC
Lawsuit was removed to federal court in Massachusetts and transferred to the
MDL.

On September 14, 2007, the plaintiffs and the Columbia defendants named in the
MDL, including the Columbia Funds, entered into a stipulation of settlement
with respect to all Columbia-related claims in the MDL described above,
including the CDSC Lawsuit.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

In 2004, the Columbia Funds' adviser and distributor and certain affiliated
entities and individuals were named as defendants in certain purported
shareholder class and derivative actions making claims, including claims under
the Investment Company and the Investment Advisers Acts of 1940 and state law.
Certain Columbia Funds were named as nominal defendants.  The suits allege,
inter alia, that the fees and expenses paid by the funds are excessive and
that the advisers and their affiliates inappropriately used fund assets to
distribute the funds and for other improper purposes.  On March 2, 2005, the
actions were consolidated in the Massachusetts federal court as In re Columbia
Entities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
June 9, 2005. On November 30, 2005, the judge dismissed all claims by
plaintiffs and entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. The
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
on December 30, 2005.  A stipulation and settlement agreement dated January
19, 2007 was filed in the First Circuit on February 14, 2007, with a joint
stipulation of dismissal and motion for remand to obtain district court
approval of the settlement.  That joint motion was granted and the appeal
was dismissed.  On March 6, 2007, the case was remanded to the District Court.
The settlement, approved by the District Court on September 18, 2007, became
effective October 19, 2007.  Pursuant to the settlement, the funds' adviser
and/or its affiliates made certain payments, including plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs of notice to class members.