Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clallam County commissioners authorize prosecutor to explore hiring a land‑use specialist

Clallam County Board of County Commissioners · April 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a special April 9 meeting, the Clallam County Board of County Commissioners voted to authorize the prosecuting attorney’s office to explore engaging a land‑use specialist attorney after a closed executive session on potential litigation; any further engagement will be considered in open session with budget implications.

Clallam County commissioners on April 9 authorized the county prosecuting attorney’s office to explore engaging a land‑use specialist attorney following a closed executive session on potential litigation.

The motion — introduced in open session after the executive discussion — was moved and seconded and passed by voice vote. Commissioner Mike French, who presided over the meeting, called for the ayes and stated the motion carried.

Why it matters: county officials said the exploration is limited to determining whether specialized legal expertise in land‑use matters is needed. An attendee noted that should the county pursue any paid engagement beyond exploration, the matter would be brought back to the board and to the public in an open session to consider budget and other steps.

What happened: The special meeting opened with Chair Mike French stating the purpose as an executive session with the prosecuting attorney’s office “per RCW 42.3 0.11” to discuss agency matters relating to potential litigation. The board recessed into the closed session and returned to the public record at noon after about two hours.

After the session, a motion was placed on the record to "authorize the prosecuting attorney's office to explore engagement with a land use specialist attorney," a phrase spoken on the record during the discussion. On the record, an attendee emphasized it would be the board and public who would consider any additional engagement and the related budgetary implications in open session.

The clerk did not record individual roll‑call votes; the motion passed on a voice vote. No specific firm, attorney, dollar amounts or timeline for hiring were provided during the meeting; those details, if pursued, were said to be brought back to the board in public.

The meeting adjourned with no further action taken.