Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harbor residents protest proposed Bay Area First Step site; residents and others raise budget transparency concerns
Summary
Public commenters at the Curry County Board meeting objected to a proposed Bay Area First Step rehabilitation site in Harbor and urged greater transparency about ARPA and other COVID-related fund allocations.
Several members of the public addressed the board during the public‑comment period, expressing two main concerns: opposition to a proposed Bay Area First Step drug‑rehabilitation site in Harbor, and requests for greater transparency about how ARPA and other COVID‑related county funds were spent.
C. Roberts, a Harbor resident, said the Bay Area First Step facility’s proposed Harbor location was inappropriate because the community lacks law‑enforcement resources and already is dealing with an increasing tent population. “This drug rehab facility should have been the subject of public hearings by the BOC instead of us finding out after the fact,” Roberts said.
Lincoln Okada, a Harbor resident, and others raised broader transparency concerns about federal relief and pandemic funds. Okada said he had not seen accounting that answered questions about funds the Treasury Department identified as “unaccounted for,” referencing a $2.7 million figure mentioned in the community. He asked the board for a spreadsheet showing recipients and reasons for spending that money and also referenced a larger figure he cited as $4.3 million. County commissioners responded during the meeting that audited line‑item details will be provided as part of the audit process and that staff will share information as it becomes part of the public audit record.
Separately, David Barnes addressed an earlier allegation that he had created a “secret account” and said he had deposited LARP receipts in a local bank (Umpqua Bank) after consulting with commissioners at the time and that the decision earned a higher interest return than the LGIP for the period cited.
Commissioners did not take immediate action on the Bay Area First Step comment; they said they would pursue audit records and encouraged residents with personnel concerns to address them privately with staff. The board reiterated that the public‑comment period does not itself create policy and that matters requiring formal action would be placed on a future agenda if appropriate.
