SAN MARCOS —— A year of litigation between the city of San Marcos and the North County Transit District did nothing to change plans for the Sprinter light-rail line, but it has cost taxpayers almost $600,000 in legal fees, according to officials from the two public adencies.

San Marcos filed a lawsuit in August 2004 challenging the transit district's plans to close Shelly Drive to make way for the Sprinter. But a judge ruled in favor of the district last week, saying it did have the right to close the street located south of Highway 78 and east of Cal State San Marcos.

Officials from both sides said the case has cost the city about $207,000 and the transit district nearly $400,000 in legal fees.

"It's a waste of money spending taxpayers' dollars to sue taxpayers," San Marcos City Councilman Jim Desmond said this week. "At the same time, we can't have one government agency come in and close the street of another government agency. We had to make a stand and unfortunately it cost us a lot of money."

Desmond and other San Marcos officials said they had little choice but to sue after negotiations between the city and transit district over keeping Shelly Drive open broke down. Shelly Drive provides access to Barham Drive for about 200 homes.

But transit officials said plans had long been approved to build a 22-mile light-rail line between Oceanside and Escondido and a 1.7-mile loop designed to serve Cal State San Marcos.

"It was not our choice to spend money on this case, and San Marcos forced us to do it," said transit district board member Judy Ritter, a Vista city councilwoman. "All of this money could have been spent on improvements or amenities that would have benefited all cities."

The nearly $400,000 the transit district spent from its operating general fund on the case could have been used to pay for 6,000 hours of additional bus service, said Tom Kelleher, a transit district spokesman.

City Manager Rick Gittings said the $207,000 the city spent could have paid for two more fire captains for a year.

Gittings said the San Marcos budget allocated $330,000 for all of its attorneys fees this year, and the city may have to dip into its $30 million general fund reserve because of the legal costs from the case.

"It's obviously a lot of money, but this is not breaking anyone's bank," Gittings said of the cost. "Litigation is always more expensive than you originally anticipate."

Gittings said San Marcos paid City Attorney Helen Holmes Peak $245 an hour and David Hubbard about $228 an hour for almost all of their work on the case. Peak is a partner at Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak, and San Marcos pays her on an hourly basis for her time. Hubbard also works with the firm and was brought on specifically for the case.

Gittings said most customers would pay as much as $350 for such litigation services, but the city received a discounted rate.

"It's recognized we are a significant client of theirs," Gittings said.

The transit district, however, received a cheaper rate from its attorneys, said Michael Cowett, one of the attorneys with Best Best & Krieger, which represents the transit district.

He said a private individual would pay about $350 an hour for the firm's attorneys, but the district pays only about $167 an hour.

The transit district spent more on the case than the city despite paying its attorneys less per hour because the district's attorneys spent more time on the case, Cowett said.

Peak said she didn't know exactly why there was a difference between the cost the agencies paid for legal fees.

"We certainly put a lot of time into it and, did our best not only for the city as whole but also for the residents out there," Peak said. "We certainly did not cut short the amount of time we spent working on the case."

Lisa Briggs, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said attorneys shouldn't have had to spend time on such a case.

"It's frustrating these two entities couldn't work for the public good and instead had to get into a turf war that ended up costing taxpayers money," Briggs said.

The transit district, however, is "not foreign to litigation," said Pete Aadland, a district representative.

He said the district owns the land around the rail lines, and the property cuts through many city jurisdictions. He said cities are used to having complete control of their communities, and the fact that the transit district property falls outside of city control can cause conflict.

Jerome Stocks, the chairman of the transit district board and an Encinitas city councilman, said he can see how the situation causes problems.

"The City Council of San Marcos felt they needed to do this to uphold the rights of their citizens and I fully understand that," Stocks said. "It's just a shame it cost so much."

Contact staff writer David Sterrett at (760) 761-4411 or dsterrett@nctimes.com.