Clallam County Residents Oppose $5 Annual Parcel Fee for Conservation District Funding

The Clallam County Commissioner’s Board Meeting held on September 2, 2025, focused primarily on the proposed $5 annual parcel fee by the Clallam Conservation District (CCD). The meeting featured a series of public comments expressing strong opposition to the fee, highlighting concerns over fiscal responsibility and the management of taxpayer funds.

The discussion began with a summary from a participant who characterized the proposed fee as a "bad investment," suggesting that the CCD should not rely on property owners for funding. This sentiment was echoed by several speakers, including Denise Lapia, a local landowner, who argued that the CCD's reliance on government grants and taxpayer funding was unsustainable. Lapia emphasized the need for the CCD to adjust its expenses in line with its current income, citing the county's budget shortfalls and the burden of existing taxes on property owners.

Jake Segars, another speaker, called for the recusal of Commissioners Johnson and Ozias from the decision on the parcel fee, citing past support for significant funding increases to the CCD. He criticized the district for its inability to secure stable funding outside of taxation and pointed out that the majority of its efforts focused on salmon-centric programs, which he deemed non-essential.

Virginia Shogren also voiced her opposition, raising concerns about the high salaries of CCD management and the perceived conflict of interest in lobbying for a property tax increase to fund those salaries. She noted that only a minority of CCD supervisors attended a recent public hearing, questioning the legitimacy of the proposal given the lack of support from the district's own leadership.

Throughout the meeting, speakers consistently urged the commissioners to vote against the parcel fee, arguing that taxpayers were already overburdened and that the CCD needed to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. The commissioners did not make any immediate decisions during the meeting, but the public outcry suggests significant resistance to the proposed fee, indicating that further discussions and considerations will be necessary in the coming weeks.