Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney details multiple growth‑management appeals, estimates $232,000 in outside counsel and staff costs since 2020
Summary
City Attorney Darcy Swetnam briefed the council on consolidated appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board challenging the city’s comp plan and SEPA decisions, outlined the appellants' claims including inadequate public participation and infrastructure analysis, and estimated roughly $232,000 in outside counsel and attorney costs since 2020 for repeated appeals.
City Attorney Darcy Swetnam briefed the Anacortes City Council on Feb. 23 about a series of local appeals and Growth Management Hearings Board cases challenging the city’s 2025–2026 comprehensive plan and development regulation updates.
Swetnam said two local appeals of a SEPA Determination of Non‑Significance for the 2025 stormwater master plan and several petitions for review before the Growth Management Hearings Board have been consolidated. She summarized the appellants’ principal allegations as presented in their petitions: failure to provide meaningful early and continuous public participation under RCW 36.70A.140; inadequate planning for housing affordable to all economic segments (GMA Goal 4); SEPA process shortcomings tied to environmental review (GMA Goal 10); lack of meaningful analysis of infrastructure funding capacity (GMA Goal 12); and alleged impermissible reliance on an older shoreline master plan for SEPA review.
Swetnam said a merits hearing is currently scheduled for June 10, 2026, though consolidation and scheduling orders can change that date. She also reviewed past litigation history: a number of appeals filed by the same counsel and appellants have been dismissed or resolved in the city's favor and the city has not lost on those matters, she stated.
Swetnam provided cost and staff‑time estimates: a recent Skagit County Superior Court matter required outside counsel and cost roughly $64,000 in 2024; she estimated $232,000 in outside counsel and attorney costs since 2020 related to repeated appeals (not including planning‑department staff time). For a single round of administrative appeals she estimated 80–120 hours of attorney time and direct costs between $13,000 and $20,000; court of appeals litigation would increase costs further. She said the legal department lacks a dedicated outside counsel budget for a large consolidated appeal and council may need to consider a budget amendment if a case advances to higher court.
Councilmembers thanked Swetnam for the briefing and discussed the tension between preserving the public's right to appeal and the cost to taxpayers; Swetnam said the city could consider seeking recovery of attorney's fees when appropriate but noted fee litigation can itself consume staff time and resources. No council action was taken at the meeting; the item served as an informational briefing.
