Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public commenters press county on Gearhart fire-station ballot and allege DA‑office misconduct and high nonprofit salaries
Loading...
Summary
During public comment, a Gearhart representative urged support for a local ballot measure to fund a remodeled fire station estimated at about $10 million and Mary Ang alleged offensive conduct by district attorney office employees and cited ProPublica figures for salaries and executive compensation; no agency responses were recorded at the meeting.
Two members of the public used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press county leaders on local public‑safety funding and to raise allegations about district‑attorney‑office conduct and nonprofit compensation.
Dana Gould (identified as a counselor from Gearhart) outlined longstanding efforts to resolve her city’s public‑safety infrastructure needs and described community discussion of options ranging from rebuilding to remodeling. Gould said rebuilding the existing station met seismic requirements but carried an estimated price “eye‑watering” above $30 million, whereas a remodel option would cost about $10 million if financed over a shorter term. She said her community placed a measure (referred to as Measure 2‑39 in the public remarks) on the ballot and asked the county and residents to consider the local impact of those funding decisions.
Mary Ang (introduced as representing Gearhart) spoke next and raised concerns about conduct in the district attorney’s office and about nonprofit compensation. Ang said she praised a whistleblower and cited figures she said appear in a ProPublica filing: “$486,086 of other salaries and wages in the 2024 filing” and executive compensation of about $211,000 the prior year. She framed those figures as part of her broader concern that funding intended to serve people experiencing homelessness should more directly reach recipients rather than being lost to large administrative pay.
The board did not record responses from the district attorney’s office or from parties named by the commenter during the meeting. County staff accepted the public documents presented by speakers and thanked them for attending.
