Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council briefed on quasi‑judicial rezoning process for Wilson Estates; hearing record limits public comment and ex parte contacts
Summary
Community development director walked the council through the quasi‑judicial rezone process for the Wilson Estates (Z25-009) project, noting the hearing examiner already held the public hearing and that council decisions next week must be based only on the existing record; the city attorney reviewed conflict and ex parte disclosure requirements.
The City of Pasco council received a detailed preview of a quasi‑judicial rezoning (Z25‑009) affecting a north‑end site referred to in materials as the Wilson Estates project.
Haley Mattson, the city’s community and economic development director, explained that the item will return to the council as a closed‑record quasi‑judicial matter and that the hearing examiner has already held the public hearing (the packet indicates the hearing was before the examiner on Nov. 12, 2025). Mattson said new evidence cannot be presented at the council hearing and urged council members to refer neighbors to the hearing examiner process rather than discuss the matter off‑record.
City attorney Drew Polum told council members the 'apparent fairness' doctrine applies when the council sits in a quasi‑judicial role. Polum asked council members to disclose any potential conflicts of interest (direct or indirect financial interests, prior ex parte contacts, or pre‑judgment of issues) before the council deliberates next week. The city attorney also opened the record for anyone in the audience seeking to disqualify a council member; none stepped forward at the workshop.
Mattson previewed the staff packet and the role of the hearing examiner in producing the record the council will use to apply city code criteria. She said the council may approve, remand to the hearing examiner for more review, or deny the proposal (denial requires findings of fact showing legal support). Mattson recommended that substantive public comments be taken at the hearing examiner level or the upcoming closed‑record council meeting rather than in the workshop.
The council was advised to avoid off‑record discussions that could require disclosure at the quasi‑judicial hearing.
