Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press county on harm-reduction litter, NODC accountability, courthouse security and septic-fee spending
Summary
Speakers at the Oct. 28 Clallam County commission meeting urged clearer voucher reporting, cleanup of harm-reduction litter, accountability for NODC/RECOMPETE grants, transparency on a $13 septic fee, and explanations for outsourcing courthouse security.
Speakers during the meeting's public-comment periods raised multiple topics and urged the board to pursue follow-up actions.
Jake Seager, a resident who spoke multiple times, asked the county to itemize vouchers to clarify spending (noting entries labeled simply as "Amazon" or similar) and later described abundant harm-reduction litter along Tumwater Creek, including used syringe kits and discarded supplies. Seager suggested the county use the Clallam Conservation District's workforce or other local partners for cleanup.
Ed Bowen requested that the board report the results of the 9 a.m. executive session; the board replied later in the meeting that it had discussed Patricia's sale of real estate and authorized staff to engage the property owner in a payment plan. Bowen also asked about NODC and RECOMPETE funding and accountability.
Multiple speakers praised progress on the county broadband project but others asked whether price controls or public-utility structures were considered when private operators assume service. Several commenters urged the board to press the state on a toxicology/testing backlog at the state crime lab that can delay DUI prosecutions.
Other remarks included praise for the state fair and its awards; complaints about hiring outside security for Charter Review Commission meetings; concerns about proposed taxes and conservation-district funding; and a request for transparency on the $13 septic-fee revenue and how those funds are being used. County staff said septic-fee collections have been roughly $263,000 (2023) and $266,000 (2024) and that funds currently support environmental health staffing and operations; the Board of Health will receive further reporting on objectives and outcomes.
The board acknowledged many of the points and in several cases suggested staff follow up with departments and partners or that residents contact elected state officials on issues such as the state crime lab backlog.
