Clallam County commissioners authorize prosecutor to pursue “option 3” after executive session on real estate and litigation

The Clallam County Board of Commissioners voted to authorize the county prosecutor's office to pursue what was described in executive session as “option 3” related to a real estate matter and potential litigation, after returning to the public record at 2:15 p.m. The executive session was held under Washington statute RCW 42.30.110, the board said.

The board held a special meeting at Judith Hillgate and moved into executive session for the stated purpose of discussing purchase or sale of real estate and agency matters related to potential litigation. Commissioners rejoined the public meeting after the executive session and later approved a motion authorizing the prosecutor's office to proceed with option 3 “in an amount not greater than what was discussed,” according to the meeting record. The exact dollar amount and other financial details were not specified in the public record.

Commissioners recessed into executive session for an initial 30 minutes and later indicated they required about 15 additional minutes before returning to the public meeting at 2:15 p.m. A motion to enter executive session for 30 minutes was made and seconded and carried by voice vote; names of the mover and seconder were not specified on the public record. After further closed deliberations, the board authorized the prosecutor’s office to move forward with option 3; that motion also passed unanimously by voice vote.

Attendees listed at the meeting included Commissioner Mike French, Commissioner Mark Ozias, Commissioner Rene Johnson, County Engineer Joe Genese, Public Works staffer Steve Gregg, Linda Capps from real estate services, Tammy Stollinger from HR and risk management, County Administrator Tom Milkey (participating remotely), Dean Bauch of the prosecutor’s office, and Jay Reno, deputy civil prosecutor.

The board directed the prosecutor’s office to proceed with the course of action described in executive session and asked for a resolution reflecting the outcome; one participant said they looked forward to a “resolution based on the auction,” but the transcript did not provide further detail about the auction process or timing. No vote tallies tied to individual commissioners were recorded in the public portion of the transcript, and the meeting record did not state a timeline for any public filings or next steps beyond preparing a resolution.

Because the substantive deliberations and the specific financial figures were held in executive session, the public record released during the meeting includes only the board’s formal actions to convene the executive session and to authorize the prosecutor’s office to pursue the previously discussed option. The statute cited by the board, RCW 42.30.110, authorizes executive sessions for specified purposes including real estate and litigation matters.

The meeting did not specify a date in the public transcript excerpt; financial limits and the precise scope of “option 3” were described during closed deliberations and were not disclosed on the public record.