00941HualLor � v,�,yi..c
State of Washington
office of the Attorney General
November 15, 1978
Page' Two
J
s
because this litigation may result in increased financial
Additionally, the city has argued
'
costs to the developer.
s that any delay will cause the costs to the developer to increase,
a nd for this additional reason -.the plaintiff must post a bond,
This is not an injunction bond that the city is asking for
it is a request for a bond to cover the developer's costs.
has denied the request, the developer has
:,
s 4,
The court previously
never pursued the matter, but the city continues t.o'do so.
be the
The city s position appears to one of guaranteeing
1,4
developer a profit - at any expense.
The above is but one of a number of questions that my
have about the propriety of the expenditure of their
Clients
tax dollars for what on many occasions appears to be an
It
undertaking of the defense of the developers interests.
that are requesting that investigate
is for this reason we .you
and audit the expenditures involved for a determination of
• the public vs, private nature of the expenses paid.
Very truly yours,
EVANS, QUIMBY & HALL, INC., P.S.
TCE/jm