LANGLEY — The city’s ham-handed handling of the Langley Passage project has city council members eager to hire a hearing examiner to handle appeals on land-use matters.

The council voted unanimously earlier this week to have the city’s planning department work with the city attorney to write an ordinance that would lay the groundwork for using a hearing examiner.

Council members said the change was needed, given the city’s recent history with the controversial Langley Passage project, which resulted in multiple appeals from both the developer of the new subdivision and its critics, as well as repeated lawsuit threats and a stunning reversal in the council’s rejection of the controversial 20-home development.

Larry Kwarsick, the city’s director of planning, said Langley could reduce its legal liability by removing council members from quasi-judicial matters — those times when council members essentially step in as judges to decide the legal merits of land-use disputes — and would also give city officials more time to devote to legislative priorities.

Council members were enthusiastic about the idea.

“I’m all for this,” said Councilman Bob Waterman.

Councilwoman Rene Neff said it was “very apparent” that a greater level of expertise was needed during the review of Langley Passage.

“It would serve our city very well to have an expert to be doing this,” she said.

Talk of a hiring a hearing examiner has intensified in recent weeks, and City Attorney Grant Weed gave the council an extensive overview on the topic at a recent workshop.

According to Weed, having a hearing examiner handle appeals would lead to faster and more predictable hearings, and would take the politics out of the appeal process. A hearing examiner would make a decision based on the city’s code, instead of what was politically popular.

Challenges to a hearing examiner decision would go straight to superior court.

The downsides include the cost of hiring someone to serve as a hearing examiner, and that the more-formal process used by an examiner could increase the cost for people filing challenges with the city on land-use matters.

“I know it would be an added cost, but I really believe we should budget for it,” Neff said.

“None of us are lawyers nor planners nor land-use officials. I just feel that these are very complicated decisions that have to be made,” she said.

Councilman Robert Gilman, however, said he wanted the city council to make the final decision on appeals. Under that scenario, a hearing examiner would make a decision that could then be appealed to the city council.

“I’m somewhat concerned that we are overreacting from our experience with Langley Passage,” Gilman said.

“I suspect I’m in the minority on this,” Gilman said, recalling the recent discussion at the workshop where everyone else on the council favored having a hearing examiner make the final decision before any court challenge.

Councilman Hal Seligson agreed with Gilman.

“Yes, I believe you’re in the minority,” Seligson said, prompting chuckles from the audience at Monday’s meeting.

“If you have legal decisions that are being made that are subject to being taken to court, it would be best not to go from the attorney to lay people,” Seligson said.

The council also has bigger policy issues on its plate, he added.

“In the grand scheme, the legislative areas are more worthy of the time spent,” Seligson said.

The council voted 5-0 to authorize the writing of an ordinance what would delegate the council’s decision-making authority on quasi-judicial matters to a hearing examiner, except on site-specific rezones, and to prepare a “request for proposals” for hearing examiner services.

Langley could keep a hearing examiner on retainer, and costs would vary based on the type of review needed. Another option was to share a hearing examiner with another government that already had one on staff.

Kwarsick said he checked with local jurisdictions to find those that had a hearing examiner on staff, and said that while Snohomish County has one, it would be unlikely to contract with Langley to share the examiner, as the county council had rebuffed similar requests from cities within Snohomish County.