999 Third Avenue
Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104
206.682.3333 phone
206.340.8856 fax


 

SCB has a long history of representing governmental entities as both general and special counsel since the firm was established in 1915. Some of our past clients include the state Attorney General's Office; the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Oak Harbor, Enumclaw, Snoqualmie, Wenatchee, Milton and Redmond; King, Kitsap, Pierce, Island, Chelan and Whatcom counties; Sound Transit; Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; Snohomish County PUD; the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; the Seattle Housing Authority; the ports of Kalama, Bellingham, Seattle, and Woodland; and the Federal Way Water & Sewer District; the Kitsap County Public Utility District; the Grays Harbor Fire District; and the Prosser School District.

We have developed the substantive knowledge and practical experience to help governments deal effectively with their unique concerns, ensure that their transactions are successful, and avoid unnecessary risk and delay.

The scope of our work for public entities includes all elements of municipal and local government activities, including:

  • Drafting and applying land use regulations
  • Conducting hearings and handling subsequent litigation and appeals
  • Negotiating and drafting interlocal agreements
  • Entitlement and permitting work issues
  • Regional governmental entities and special purpose districts
  • Administrative hearings before the Growth Management Boards, Shoreline Hearings Board, Pollution Control Hearings Board, and others.
  • Managing eminent domain, land acquisition, and complex development actions
  • Compliance with public procedural and ethics laws
  • Implementing environmental regulations and managing hazardous waste liability
  • Negotiating, litigating, and advising on employment and labor law (management)
  • Preparing bidding documents and negotiating construction contracts
  • Defending tort actions and other claims
  • Litigation in the areas of land use, construction, real estate, permitting, enforcement and compliance, employment, and public processes.

 

When possible, we focus on preventive law when working with public entities. This approach avoids the back-end cost of litigation and is better suited to public responsibilities and accountability. Our attorneys have been routinely successful in litigation and appeals, making significant contributions to Washington law.

For example:

City of Bothell et al. v. Snohomish County et al.

Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., Case No. 07-3-0026c (2007). Scott Missall represented the City of Mill Creek. In this case, Mill Creek, joined by the City of Bothell and property owners, challenged Snohomish County comprehensive planning actions that changed the urban growth area (UGA) boundary and located high-intensity land uses in the cities' UGA but outside the cities' current boundaries. The challenge was based, in part, on (i) the lack of internal consistency between the planning actions and the County's own transportation requirements, and (ii) the lack of external consistency with the comprehensive plans of Mill Creek and Bothell. Mill Creek and Bothell prevailed when the Growth Board reversed the County's planning actions (in part) and remanded for corrective legislative action.

The final decision was rendered by a unanimous Supreme Court decision that upheld Woodway's comprehensive planning action under GMA, reversed the Growth Board's original decision, and dismissed the appeal. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 156 Wn.2d 131, 124 P.3d 640 (2005). The case was complex, required several years to complete, and involved many amicus parties.

Beverly Gagnier, et al v. City of Bellevue

CPSGMHB Case No. 02-3-0014 (2003). Scott Missall represented the property owner, Factoria Square Limited Partnership. In this case, the City of Bellevue granted to the property owner a binding site plan and master plan approval for the redevelopment of Factoria Square Mall into a mixed use urban village combining several hundred new dwelling units with open spaces and plazas, structured parking, and expanded commercial and retail uses. The approvals culminated a two-year administrative process during which Scott Missall worked for the property owner to negotiate the project with the City, and to coordinate, manage and present the project and its various component parts to the Bellevue Planning Commission and City Council. The Growth Board upheld the City 's approval and dismissed the appeal. No further appeal was taken.

City of Shoreline v. Town of Woodway et al.

CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-0013 (2001). Scott Missall represented the Town of Woodway, which was the moving party in the case. This case concerned the right of the Town of Woodway to add an unincorporated portion of Snohomish County (known as Point Wells) to its UGA, and to plan for the future annexation of that area into the Town. The Growth Board initially ruled against Woodway (and Snohomish County) in a divided 2-1 decision. Separate appeals were filed in Snohomish and King County superior courts, which were both decided in favor of Woodway. Subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals were consolidated and were also decided in Woodway's favor.

Other precedent-setting decisions

New principles of park mitigation fees were established by Scott Missall in United Development Corp. v. Mill Creek, 106 Wn. App. 681 (2001)

The constitutionality of Initiative 695 was litigated by Andy Maron in Amalgamated Transit Union v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 11 P.3d 762 (2000).

New principles of annexation law were established by Scott Missall in Snohomish Co. v. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. 371 (1991).

The method of establishing construction damages was enunciated in a case involving Andy Maron in Eastlake Construction Co. v. Hess, 102 Wn.2d 30 (1984).