Residents press commissioners over planning, permitting fees and allegations of improper approvals

Several residents used the meeting’s public-comment periods to press Thurston County commissioners over planning and permitting practices, high fees for single-family building projects and, in one case, allegations of improper approvals and favoritism.

John Pettit, an agenda-item and general commenter, told the board members they must verify that formal, itemized budget appropriations exist before approving expenditures on consent items. He also said records he requested from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office contradict documents provided elsewhere and described the discrepancy as potential false documentation: "The documentation clearly says that while somebody here says the prosecutor's office has provided them documentation, the prosecutor's office letter to me in a public records request says there is no such documentation," Pettit said, adding that false information provided to the board could be criminal.

Pettit later alleged bribery and corruption around a conditional site approval at 1402 Madrona Beach Drive and said he would report the matter to the FBI; he called for the dismissal of the CPED director. Those are allegations raised in public comment and were not substantiated during the meeting. Assistant County Manager Jobs later said staff had worked with the CPED director to address the signage and durability concerns raised in the cited case and that the matter appeared resolved for now.

Multiple speakers criticized the culture and responsiveness of the County planning and permitting office. Zack Chamberlain provided an itemized list of county-permitting fees he said totaled $13,782.50 for a small rural home and said required studies and surcharges push total costs closer to $18,000, arguing the cumulative burden discourages young families from building: "Said and done, you're looking at nearly $18,000 for a permit on a small home in rural Thurston County." He asked the board to review fees and culture in CPED to make the county more hospitable to single-family residential building.

Justin Russell described a case resolved after assistance from staff (Wayland), saying planners initially insisted on changes despite evidence the signs met code. He called for broader management reforms in the planning department to address what he described as a culture of "bureaucratic arrogance and petty tyranny."

Terry Ballard raised two long-standing themes: that the Veterans Advisory Board does not comply with RCW 73.08 appointment standards and that the county was failing to follow public-records obligations under RCW 42.56. Ballard said he intends to seek further enforcement and legal remedies if violations continue.

County staff and some commissioners acknowledged the concerns and offered to follow up. Commissioner Clausen told a commenter she would email attachments about consent items and staff said they would continue to work with residents on individual permitting issues. No formal disciplinary or investigatory actions were announced at the meeting; the allegations that suggest criminal conduct (reported bribery at a specific address) remain unproven in the record and were offered as public comment for the board’s consideration.

The meeting record shows multiple requests for follow-up by staff; the county manager noted that staff, including CPED leadership and the Prosecuting Attorney's civil division, would continue to review documentation and assist with next steps. The board adjourned with no additional votes tied to the allegations.