Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Infrastructure Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise safety and maintenance concerns for 3 Crabs restoration area and Town Road at Clallam County meeting
Summary
Public commenters urged caution on restoration work in the 3 Crabs area, expressed mistrust of outside actors, and criticized the county's handling and funding of road repairs, including a claim that a $1.4 million grant expired and left insufficient funds for immediate study or mitigation.
Multiple residents used the Feb. 4 public comment period to raise concerns about shoreline restoration work at 3 Crabs and long‑running road and flooding issues on Town Road.
John Worthington, identified in the record as from Sequim, said he was concerned about involvement by an international restoration organization (as described by the commenter) in the 3 Crabs restoration and warned of potential negative effects to local harvest zones. Worthington said he had previously raised these issues with commissioners and urged the county to apply local policy strategies used elsewhere.
Jeff Joseph, a resident of Jamestown Road in Sequim, testified that after more than two years of email exchanges with commissioners, the county had only recently begun seeking money to perform a study for the 3 Crabs area. He said that delay put residents at risk of another flood season and asserted that a town‑road grant totaling $1,400,000 — described in his comment as $800,000 in the roads fund and $600,000 in another fund — was lost when a grant expired; he said the county allowed the grant to lapse despite warnings from the county road engineer and an attorney. Joseph asked for more transparency and accountability and contrasted treatment of different road and resident issues.
Another commenter who identified themselves as having family history in the 3 Crabs area urged caution and noted that portions of the area are perilous because of slow ground.
The presiding official acknowledged the comments and noted the county would continue to receive public input; commissioners did not take formal action on the specific concerns raised during the Feb. 4 meeting.
Ending: The comments record resident frustration with perceived delays and with the county’s handling of grant funding and flood‑risk mitigation; the remarks will likely inform subsequent staff work and agenda items but drew no immediate vote at the meeting.
