The commissioners did not answer the last email. Here is today's question:
Dear Commissioners,
After approving guaranteed, long-term public funding for the Clallam Conservation District without a vote of the people, what leverage do the Commissioners believe they still have to ensure the CCD follows election law, maintains financial accountability, and meaningfully engages the public—especially given that a prior CCD election was thrown out and the District is now restricting public participation?
Good governance means explaining what authority you have, what you don’t, and exactly how you will enforce accountability when public dollars are committed for the long term. Below is a good-governance modeled response acknowledging overlooked public testimony, clarifying remaining board authority, and outlining lawful corrective actions.
Dear Constituent,
"What leverage" is a legitimate governance question, and it warrants a clear and specific response.
When the Board of County Commissioners approved a multi-year rates-and-charges system for the Clallam Conservation District (CCD) pursuant to RCW 89.08.405, we had before us written public testimony that offered a lawful, benefit-based alternative design. That testimony, submitted by Dr. Sarah Huling and entered into the official record for the September 2, 2025, public hearing, included proposed resolution language intended to align charges with services furnished or reasonably available during the term (Clallam County Board of Commissioners [BOCC], 2025a).
That language was not incorporated into the adopted resolution. In hindsight, failing to formally evaluate or address that testimony as part of the Board’s findings was an oversight.
Washington law expressly authorizes the Board to set rates and classifications based on services furnished or available, benefits received or available, land use or character, and other reasonable distinctions (RCW 89.08.405). A benefit-based structure of the type proposed in the public testimony would have preserved stable funding for CCD while creating a self-correcting incentive: parcels would be charged when services were actually provided or practically available, and the District would be incentivized to expand outreach, enrollment, and documented service delivery. Public-sector governance guidance consistently emphasizes that front-end policy design which aligns incentives with outcomes reduces downstream disputes, enforcement burdens, and erosion of public trust (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2015).
This is what I mean when I say that good policy is good governance. When funding mechanisms are designed to reflect benefit and performance at the outset, the system itself does much of the accountability work, rather than relying on after-the-fact appeals, complaints, or litigation.
Moving forward, approval of a long-term rates-and-charges framework does not eliminate the Board’s authority or responsibility.
Under RCW 89.08.405, the Board retains the ability to amend a previously adopted rates-and-charges resolution through subsequent public action. A stated multi-year term limits automatic escalation but does not divest the Board of its power to refine classifications, conditions, or reporting requirements when experience and public input reveal design deficiencies. For that reason, I intend to raise an amendment proposal for consideration by the other commissioners that revisits the benefit-based framework documented in the September 2, 2025, hearing record (Clallam County BOCC, 2025a; 2025b).
In addition, concerns raised regarding CCD election practices warrant clarification from the appropriate supervising authority. Conservation district elections are governed by RCW 89.08 and WAC 135-110, with oversight responsibilities assigned to the Washington State Conservation Commission. To ensure public confidence and legal compliance, I will support a formal inquiry to the Conservation Commission seeking confirmation of whether CCD’s current and recent election procedures meet state requirements, and whether any corrective actions or county-level coordination are necessary.
It is also important to be clear about accountability. CCD remains subject to Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), and independent audit by the Washington State Auditor’s Office under RCW 43.09. Shifting funding away from the County General Fund does not shift accountability away from elected officials. Oversight of public funds and public process remains a core duty of this Board.
Finally, I believe the Board should address these issues openly. Annual reporting requirements should be accompanied by public presentation and discussion, not merely receipt, so residents can see how funds are being used, what outcomes are being achieved, and how concerns are addressed. Silence in the face of documented public concern does not serve the public interest.
Correcting course when better policy design has been clearly articulated in the public record is not a failure of governance. It is governance doing what it is supposed to do.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Clallam County Board of Commissioners. (2025a). Meeting minutes: September 2, 2025 – Public hearing on Clallam Conservation District rates and charges. Clallam County, WA.
Clallam County Board of Commissioners. (2025b). Public testimony and correspondence submitted for the September 2, 2025, CCD rates and charges agenda item. Clallam County, WA.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015). Managing for results: Key considerations for implementing collaborative mechanisms (GAO-15-520). https://www.gao.gov
Washington Administrative Code. (n.d.). WAC 135-110: Conservation district elections. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac
Washington State Auditor’s Office. (n.d.). Local government accountability and audit reports. https://sao.wa.gov
Washington State Conservation Commission. (n.d.). Conservation district governance and elections. https://scc.wa.gov
"During the meeting, Williams complained that the public does not “understand” issues like water quality and warned the District could “lose our expertise” if the pool of voters changes."
And there it is, Marky Mark and his funky bunch continue with their reign of conniving power.
The BOCCC has emboldened the CCD and instead of stepping up to defend the citizens of Clallam County capitulate to this insanity.
Spot on, MK! That quote you referenced is an eye-opener to CC residents. It shows their superiority complex is very alive and thriving. These people truly believe they are above everyone else and don't want their gene pool diluted with just any taxpayer.
Speaking as one of the many common "unwashed" who would not know the difference between a rain and a urine "shower" I must also be too stupid to refrain from using an open flame near the criminals in our midst as they continue to attempt to "Gas Light" everyone into submission~! Perhaps it is my fault for following these evil scumbags and their recent "reading without comprehension" guideline of the corrupt Federal Department of Education, as I reach for my flamethrower to shed some light upon their Pelosi inspired "fine print" that "we" should ignore until it is too late~! HA~! Pardon the "cascade" of intentional puns, but humor seems more appropriate (and fun ;-) when the truly ignorant and stupid conniving social engineering bullies keep insisting upon accusing everyone else as lacking basic Intelligence~! So, "the public's" Ignorance is now infectious, much like these evil social engineers COVID bioweapon, to the point that it now endangers the self-described "expertise of our mental superiors"~? HA~! OH, that is preciously rich~! Could it be that "we" (lowly dregs in the general public) are actually too Intelligent for these socialist scumbags to "handle" as they have grown so accustomed over the years? Has the truth FINALLY set us free after decades of tolerating the intolerable rats? Are "we" seeing the wave of truth approaching these idiot criminals in our community, like a tsunami approaching a low-lying shoreline to cleanse a beach full of scum and villainy despots? A Biblical event of epic proportion? Are these evil manipulative mental midgets starting to understand that their time has come and Americans have grown tired of tolerating their ridiculous insanity and "fake rage" based upon their fake science? Yes, me thinks that the time for rejecting the madness and refusing to comply with the same is upon us~! We know about water quality and now we have learned about "government quality" issues, so let us continue to keep up our Goodley efforts... Let these fools attempt to control "us" (American Patriots) with their phony "water conservation" garbage as they have been trained by their puppeteers, because "OUR" daddy is bigger than theirs and they are about to get "monkey stomped" by justice that is long overdue~!
Long live The American Republic and the freedoms and rights Americans were always born to possess~!
Wow, are we surprised? Absolutely not and exactly why we were in opposition of the BOCC handing over our tax dollars to their buddies wanting a local income. We are getting past the point of letters and comments to groups that have zero integrity nor accountability. I'll try it in a civil matter one more time.
Question is, who would want to sit in a room with this group of extreme nut jobs...
We are watching a local flavor of communism unfold right before our eyes! We see more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer unaccountable people. People that promote their own myopic vision of a world that is self promoting and selfish.
We have a month to get this done. Everyone at CCWD can get 10 people to sign up. Let’s show that our group CAN make a change. I believe that if we do this we can win. Let’s get going in a positive direction and each of us get those 10 votes. I am starting today to get
Suggestion: there was a partition signed by +1000 people, should have address contact info available I would imagine. Jake Seegars would be the one to contact. Perhaps we can get +1000 people from the partition to make their vote count. We could organize ahead of time photograph all ballots before they go into the faulty ballot box or have them bulk mailed? Just a suggestion by a friend.
Wendy Rae Johnson describes herself as a "soil advocate and climate solutions educator." WTF is that??? And this gives you the balls to call public concerns over election procedures “litigiousness and harassment” and dismiss the idea of placing CCD elections on the November ballot are a “waste of taxpayers’ money.” Girlfriend, the $5 parcel fee is a waste of taxpayer money.
After reading this morning's excellent "Watchdog" article, I was just wondering if there could even exist a better example & description of a corrupt government entity that so clearly defines "Bad Faith"~? Yes, Jeff Tozzer is absolutely correct as usual, the three Clallam County Commissioners who created this public nightmare of a disaster are the very ones who can best now correct their failure. Will they? Or will they double down and prove their underhanded Intent all along~?
My understanding is all non-industrial, privately owned parcels are assessed the CCD fee. Should not the owners of all such parcels receive a ballot? When I visited the ballot request page, I noted that a mobile phone number was "required" information. Not everyone owns, or wants a mobile phone. Mobile phone ownership should not be required to participate in this election. Another question: when will ballots be sent out? Before election day, one hopes.
The requirement for phone and email has been removed.
I wrote the Washington State Secretary of State's office to inquire whether this requirement was legal under state law. They declined to answer and directed me to the Washington State Conservation Commission, whose response was a non-answer. BUT when I returned to the ballot request form after receiving both responses, I found that phone and email are both now optional fields.
Clallamity Jen had an excellent article explaining how the county government works. Thank you Clallamity. Although POWER WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY...explains much, I’m still confused, (which appears to be the CCD’s goal. Confuse and limit voting). I have 4 questions below. If they could be answered, it would help me grasp this a little better.
(1) Is this just for Port Angeles or does it include Sequim and Forks?
“Ballots will be sent only to voters the CCD considers qualified, based on an internal voter list that Executive Director Kim Williams acknowledged is eight years old”
(2) What is a “internal voter list”? What does “eight years old” really mean voting wise?
“Voters not on the CCD’s internal list will not automatically receive ballots—only a postcard alerting them to the new rules. If a voter’s registration cannot be verified through the Secretary of State’s database, Williams stated they will be issued a “provisional ballot,” adding yet another discretionary layer to the process”
(3) Does this mean you have to request a ballot THEN receive either a postcard or a ballot? Or does it mean Voters on the CCD internal list will automatically receive a ballot without having to request one?
Comms. Ozias and Johnson own this debacle. They are the two who voted against property owners to impose this new tax/fee upon us. They knowingly favored a questionable organization over the genuine concerns of property owners, who overwhelmingly opposed this new tax/fee. And now we face another layer of questionable actions by the CCD with new requirements that make voter applications restrictive and make voting vulnerable to fraud and cheating. To them we are more than ATMs, we are the scorned citizenry.
Are any other property owners considering not paying the $5?
First quarter payments are due in a couple of months and I’m considering sending in a check that doesn’t include the $5 fee. My guess is they’ll return the check and ask for the full amount, then I’ll send another one and state my reasons for protest. At that point, I’d guess the county would just cash the check.
I believe their only recourse for failure to pay property taxes is foreclosure. I was recently looking at sheriffs’ sales for failure to pay property taxes at all, and the process seems to take years, and that’s when there’s six or seven figures of delinquency. So, I have a hard time imagining that the county would expend resources to foreclose on my property over $5.
If we did this en mass, it’d be a pretty powerful protest against this fee.
I really appreciate this perspective, thanks for sharing. Tax resistance isn't something I've ever considered, or something I would take lightly.
However, the article notes that she stopped paying her mortgage, which was the reason for her foreclosure. I would absolutely keep paying my mortgage, that's a debt I agreed to pay.
I'm also (begrudgingly) going to pay the remainder of my property taxes. My focus is on this five dollar fee.
Review of the Clallam County's property foreclosure process (link below) shows that amount of discretion the county exercises in pursuing foreclosure. Based on this timeline, it would be January 2026 before the property would be considered for foreclosure, and then the process takes a year.
Foreclosures are expensive for the foreclosing party, there's legal fees, notices, etc. So there is always a cost-benefit analysis. In Clallamity Jen's post, the mortgage company did all the work for the county by initiating the foreclosure, because it was owed possibly thousands of dollars, making it worth it their upfront spend to recoup. There, the county got to ride along for free and collect past due taxes at the sale.
Here, I'm talking about not paying $5. Would the county spend the money necessary to foreclosure just to collect $5? I think no.
So, I agree overall with the caution in Clallamity Jen's post, but I think a targeted act of protest of this specific $5 fee could be successful.
Note, all of the foreclosures involved delinquencies in the four or five figures. The smallest delinquency that resulted in foreclosure in 2025 was $2,264.
How do you separate the $5 fee from your tax statement.Your tax statement will have 2 6 month installments with all taxes itemized and then added together.You don't have a choice you pay it all or treasurer will not except payment which leads to penalties if late.Go 2 years without full payment then foreclosure process proceeds.
I pay my property taxes quarterly, by check. I plan to write the check for $5 less.
I do agree with you that the treasurer has the ability to reject partial payments. But, that forces the issue in a way that I like. Is the County ready to reject a payment for the vast majority of the taxes, standing on the absolute need of this $5 fee? Seems to me that if enough of us do it they'd face a choice of either having a revenue short fall by rejecting all of these partial payments, or they would accept the payments less the fee.
I also like the two year timeline, by that point, we could potentially have two new county commissioners, and a new board at CCCD. Maybe by the time we get there we have enough opposition that the whole thing is dropped.
Even though the CCD assessment is called a rate or charge rather than a property tax, once it is placed on the tax roll it is collected and enforced in the same manner as property taxes. If it is not paid in full, the unpaid amount may become delinquent, accrue penalties and interest, and result in a lien against the property.
This response models how an individual commissioner can acknowledge a constituent’s frustration while clearly explaining legal limits, consequences of non-payment, and the appropriate channels for lawful civic engagement.
Good-governance modeled reply:
Dear Constituent,
I understand why you’re frustrated, and I want to be clear and honest with you about what I can—and cannot—do as an individual commissioner.
The $5 rate/charge adopted for the Clallam Conservation District is a lawfully authorized assessment attached to the parcel, not a voluntary fee. If it is not paid, the county is required by state law to treat it the same way it treats other unpaid property-related charges: it becomes delinquent, interest and penalties accrue, and a lien ultimately attaches to the property. I do not have the authority to waive that consequence, and the county cannot suspend enforcement based on protest or intent.
I also want to be clear that withholding payment does not create policy leverage. Counties are obligated to follow statutory collection processes, not renegotiate adopted charges through non-payment. In practice, the financial and legal risk falls on the individual property owner long before it meaningfully affects county operations.
Where your input does matter—and where I can help—is in the lawful governance channels:
• Participating in public hearings
• Submitting written testimony for the record
• Requesting future changes to how rates are structured or justified
• Asking the Board to revisit findings, reporting, or accountability measures going forward
If you’d like, I’m willing to help you frame your concerns in a way that is formally preserved in the public record and directed to the Board at the right point in the process. That approach protects you, respects the law, and is the most effective way to influence future decisions.
My responsibility is to be transparent with you about how the system actually works—even when that answer isn’t what people want to hear—and to help you engage in a way that doesn’t put your property at risk.
Many years ago i was a day late on payment and my check was returned and a new amount with the late fee was attached which was only good for a x number of days then higher fee's were threatened.I believe board commissioners just voted to raise our property tax roll rates.Keep us posted on your $5 dispute so we can see if c.county has changed it's policy.
The commissioners did not answer the last email. Here is today's question:
Dear Commissioners,
After approving guaranteed, long-term public funding for the Clallam Conservation District without a vote of the people, what leverage do the Commissioners believe they still have to ensure the CCD follows election law, maintains financial accountability, and meaningfully engages the public—especially given that a prior CCD election was thrown out and the District is now restricting public participation?
All three commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov
Good governance means explaining what authority you have, what you don’t, and exactly how you will enforce accountability when public dollars are committed for the long term. Below is a good-governance modeled response acknowledging overlooked public testimony, clarifying remaining board authority, and outlining lawful corrective actions.
Dear Constituent,
"What leverage" is a legitimate governance question, and it warrants a clear and specific response.
When the Board of County Commissioners approved a multi-year rates-and-charges system for the Clallam Conservation District (CCD) pursuant to RCW 89.08.405, we had before us written public testimony that offered a lawful, benefit-based alternative design. That testimony, submitted by Dr. Sarah Huling and entered into the official record for the September 2, 2025, public hearing, included proposed resolution language intended to align charges with services furnished or reasonably available during the term (Clallam County Board of Commissioners [BOCC], 2025a).
That language was not incorporated into the adopted resolution. In hindsight, failing to formally evaluate or address that testimony as part of the Board’s findings was an oversight.
Washington law expressly authorizes the Board to set rates and classifications based on services furnished or available, benefits received or available, land use or character, and other reasonable distinctions (RCW 89.08.405). A benefit-based structure of the type proposed in the public testimony would have preserved stable funding for CCD while creating a self-correcting incentive: parcels would be charged when services were actually provided or practically available, and the District would be incentivized to expand outreach, enrollment, and documented service delivery. Public-sector governance guidance consistently emphasizes that front-end policy design which aligns incentives with outcomes reduces downstream disputes, enforcement burdens, and erosion of public trust (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2015).
This is what I mean when I say that good policy is good governance. When funding mechanisms are designed to reflect benefit and performance at the outset, the system itself does much of the accountability work, rather than relying on after-the-fact appeals, complaints, or litigation.
Moving forward, approval of a long-term rates-and-charges framework does not eliminate the Board’s authority or responsibility.
Under RCW 89.08.405, the Board retains the ability to amend a previously adopted rates-and-charges resolution through subsequent public action. A stated multi-year term limits automatic escalation but does not divest the Board of its power to refine classifications, conditions, or reporting requirements when experience and public input reveal design deficiencies. For that reason, I intend to raise an amendment proposal for consideration by the other commissioners that revisits the benefit-based framework documented in the September 2, 2025, hearing record (Clallam County BOCC, 2025a; 2025b).
In addition, concerns raised regarding CCD election practices warrant clarification from the appropriate supervising authority. Conservation district elections are governed by RCW 89.08 and WAC 135-110, with oversight responsibilities assigned to the Washington State Conservation Commission. To ensure public confidence and legal compliance, I will support a formal inquiry to the Conservation Commission seeking confirmation of whether CCD’s current and recent election procedures meet state requirements, and whether any corrective actions or county-level coordination are necessary.
It is also important to be clear about accountability. CCD remains subject to Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), and independent audit by the Washington State Auditor’s Office under RCW 43.09. Shifting funding away from the County General Fund does not shift accountability away from elected officials. Oversight of public funds and public process remains a core duty of this Board.
Finally, I believe the Board should address these issues openly. Annual reporting requirements should be accompanied by public presentation and discussion, not merely receipt, so residents can see how funds are being used, what outcomes are being achieved, and how concerns are addressed. Silence in the face of documented public concern does not serve the public interest.
Correcting course when better policy design has been clearly articulated in the public record is not a failure of governance. It is governance doing what it is supposed to do.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Clallam County Board of Commissioners. (2025a). Meeting minutes: September 2, 2025 – Public hearing on Clallam Conservation District rates and charges. Clallam County, WA.
Clallam County Board of Commissioners. (2025b). Public testimony and correspondence submitted for the September 2, 2025, CCD rates and charges agenda item. Clallam County, WA.
Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). RCW 42.30: Open Public Meetings Act. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw
Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). RCW 42.56: Public Records Act. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw
Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). RCW 43.09: State auditor—Local government accountability. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw
Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). RCW 89.08: Conservation districts. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw
Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). RCW 89.08.405: Rates and charges. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015). Managing for results: Key considerations for implementing collaborative mechanisms (GAO-15-520). https://www.gao.gov
Washington Administrative Code. (n.d.). WAC 135-110: Conservation district elections. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac
Washington State Auditor’s Office. (n.d.). Local government accountability and audit reports. https://sao.wa.gov
Washington State Conservation Commission. (n.d.). Conservation district governance and elections. https://scc.wa.gov
"During the meeting, Williams complained that the public does not “understand” issues like water quality and warned the District could “lose our expertise” if the pool of voters changes."
And there it is, Marky Mark and his funky bunch continue with their reign of conniving power.
The BOCCC has emboldened the CCD and instead of stepping up to defend the citizens of Clallam County capitulate to this insanity.
Jake, 2026!
Spot on, MK! That quote you referenced is an eye-opener to CC residents. It shows their superiority complex is very alive and thriving. These people truly believe they are above everyone else and don't want their gene pool diluted with just any taxpayer.
Yes, good Patriot MK~!
Speaking as one of the many common "unwashed" who would not know the difference between a rain and a urine "shower" I must also be too stupid to refrain from using an open flame near the criminals in our midst as they continue to attempt to "Gas Light" everyone into submission~! Perhaps it is my fault for following these evil scumbags and their recent "reading without comprehension" guideline of the corrupt Federal Department of Education, as I reach for my flamethrower to shed some light upon their Pelosi inspired "fine print" that "we" should ignore until it is too late~! HA~! Pardon the "cascade" of intentional puns, but humor seems more appropriate (and fun ;-) when the truly ignorant and stupid conniving social engineering bullies keep insisting upon accusing everyone else as lacking basic Intelligence~! So, "the public's" Ignorance is now infectious, much like these evil social engineers COVID bioweapon, to the point that it now endangers the self-described "expertise of our mental superiors"~? HA~! OH, that is preciously rich~! Could it be that "we" (lowly dregs in the general public) are actually too Intelligent for these socialist scumbags to "handle" as they have grown so accustomed over the years? Has the truth FINALLY set us free after decades of tolerating the intolerable rats? Are "we" seeing the wave of truth approaching these idiot criminals in our community, like a tsunami approaching a low-lying shoreline to cleanse a beach full of scum and villainy despots? A Biblical event of epic proportion? Are these evil manipulative mental midgets starting to understand that their time has come and Americans have grown tired of tolerating their ridiculous insanity and "fake rage" based upon their fake science? Yes, me thinks that the time for rejecting the madness and refusing to comply with the same is upon us~! We know about water quality and now we have learned about "government quality" issues, so let us continue to keep up our Goodley efforts... Let these fools attempt to control "us" (American Patriots) with their phony "water conservation" garbage as they have been trained by their puppeteers, because "OUR" daddy is bigger than theirs and they are about to get "monkey stomped" by justice that is long overdue~!
Long live The American Republic and the freedoms and rights Americans were always born to possess~!
Sincerely, Mike
Good morning Jeff,
Wow, are we surprised? Absolutely not and exactly why we were in opposition of the BOCC handing over our tax dollars to their buddies wanting a local income. We are getting past the point of letters and comments to groups that have zero integrity nor accountability. I'll try it in a civil matter one more time.
Question is, who would want to sit in a room with this group of extreme nut jobs...
Just what we needed another layer of waste.
CCD will have Septic Sandra Count the votes. 🙃
Is she the tank or the pump?
Thank you @Jeff Tozzer!
We are watching a local flavor of communism unfold right before our eyes! We see more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer unaccountable people. People that promote their own myopic vision of a world that is self promoting and selfish.
Its new name should be. Clallumism
What happens when we are controlled by handlers…
We have a month to get this done. Everyone at CCWD can get 10 people to sign up. Let’s show that our group CAN make a change. I believe that if we do this we can win. Let’s get going in a positive direction and each of us get those 10 votes. I am starting today to get
the ball rolling.
I’m with you 100%. I’m gonna start working on it too!
Who are the candidates?
Good question. I don't think they have even opened applications.
We need some direction on how we should vote by Jeff.
Suggestion: there was a partition signed by +1000 people, should have address contact info available I would imagine. Jake Seegars would be the one to contact. Perhaps we can get +1000 people from the partition to make their vote count. We could organize ahead of time photograph all ballots before they go into the faulty ballot box or have them bulk mailed? Just a suggestion by a friend.
Wendy Rae Johnson describes herself as a "soil advocate and climate solutions educator." WTF is that??? And this gives you the balls to call public concerns over election procedures “litigiousness and harassment” and dismiss the idea of placing CCD elections on the November ballot are a “waste of taxpayers’ money.” Girlfriend, the $5 parcel fee is a waste of taxpayer money.
Ask her when the solutions will yield actual results, and when we know we've achieved them, vs yanking our chains to garner power.
These control freaks can never answer these questions, but the public tolerates the platitudes.
Flubber and magic bean salesperson.
After reading this morning's excellent "Watchdog" article, I was just wondering if there could even exist a better example & description of a corrupt government entity that so clearly defines "Bad Faith"~? Yes, Jeff Tozzer is absolutely correct as usual, the three Clallam County Commissioners who created this public nightmare of a disaster are the very ones who can best now correct their failure. Will they? Or will they double down and prove their underhanded Intent all along~?
We are watching~!
Sincerely, Mike
My understanding is all non-industrial, privately owned parcels are assessed the CCD fee. Should not the owners of all such parcels receive a ballot? When I visited the ballot request page, I noted that a mobile phone number was "required" information. Not everyone owns, or wants a mobile phone. Mobile phone ownership should not be required to participate in this election. Another question: when will ballots be sent out? Before election day, one hopes.
The requirement for phone and email has been removed.
I wrote the Washington State Secretary of State's office to inquire whether this requirement was legal under state law. They declined to answer and directed me to the Washington State Conservation Commission, whose response was a non-answer. BUT when I returned to the ballot request form after receiving both responses, I found that phone and email are both now optional fields.
Thanks Sharon! Good to know, and thank you for your diligence!
Excellent inquiries, Shannon!! Thank you!
Shannon, you made a difference. A voter I know, does not have a phone or email. Thank you!
I think they’re mostly concerned that you might vote for or write in candidates who are not the owners of LGBTQ farms. Horrors!
Clallamity Jen had an excellent article explaining how the county government works. Thank you Clallamity. Although POWER WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY...explains much, I’m still confused, (which appears to be the CCD’s goal. Confuse and limit voting). I have 4 questions below. If they could be answered, it would help me grasp this a little better.
https://clallamityjen.substack.com/p/how-county-government-works-and-why
(1) Is this just for Port Angeles or does it include Sequim and Forks?
“Ballots will be sent only to voters the CCD considers qualified, based on an internal voter list that Executive Director Kim Williams acknowledged is eight years old”
(2) What is a “internal voter list”? What does “eight years old” really mean voting wise?
“Voters not on the CCD’s internal list will not automatically receive ballots—only a postcard alerting them to the new rules. If a voter’s registration cannot be verified through the Secretary of State’s database, Williams stated they will be issued a “provisional ballot,” adding yet another discretionary layer to the process”
(3) Does this mean you have to request a ballot THEN receive either a postcard or a ballot? Or does it mean Voters on the CCD internal list will automatically receive a ballot without having to request one?
(4) What percentage of votes are required?
I found the answers. Strait Shooter supplied them. I’ll ask EQUITY PERSON
The Role of Equity Person™
Equity Person™ exists to ensure all decisions are equitable by removing the uneven burden of understanding from the public
https://straitshooter360.substack.com/p/strait-shooter-day-after-thursday
Comms. Ozias and Johnson own this debacle. They are the two who voted against property owners to impose this new tax/fee upon us. They knowingly favored a questionable organization over the genuine concerns of property owners, who overwhelmingly opposed this new tax/fee. And now we face another layer of questionable actions by the CCD with new requirements that make voter applications restrictive and make voting vulnerable to fraud and cheating. To them we are more than ATMs, we are the scorned citizenry.
This IMHO is the most important CCWD you've written...
Are any other property owners considering not paying the $5?
First quarter payments are due in a couple of months and I’m considering sending in a check that doesn’t include the $5 fee. My guess is they’ll return the check and ask for the full amount, then I’ll send another one and state my reasons for protest. At that point, I’d guess the county would just cash the check.
I believe their only recourse for failure to pay property taxes is foreclosure. I was recently looking at sheriffs’ sales for failure to pay property taxes at all, and the process seems to take years, and that’s when there’s six or seven figures of delinquency. So, I have a hard time imagining that the county would expend resources to foreclose on my property over $5.
If we did this en mass, it’d be a pretty powerful protest against this fee.
Heather, before you do that, read this article.
https://clallamityjen.substack.com/p/what-no-one-knows-about-tax-resistance
I really appreciate this perspective, thanks for sharing. Tax resistance isn't something I've ever considered, or something I would take lightly.
However, the article notes that she stopped paying her mortgage, which was the reason for her foreclosure. I would absolutely keep paying my mortgage, that's a debt I agreed to pay.
I'm also (begrudgingly) going to pay the remainder of my property taxes. My focus is on this five dollar fee.
Review of the Clallam County's property foreclosure process (link below) shows that amount of discretion the county exercises in pursuing foreclosure. Based on this timeline, it would be January 2026 before the property would be considered for foreclosure, and then the process takes a year.
Foreclosures are expensive for the foreclosing party, there's legal fees, notices, etc. So there is always a cost-benefit analysis. In Clallamity Jen's post, the mortgage company did all the work for the county by initiating the foreclosure, because it was owed possibly thousands of dollars, making it worth it their upfront spend to recoup. There, the county got to ride along for free and collect past due taxes at the sale.
Here, I'm talking about not paying $5. Would the county spend the money necessary to foreclosure just to collect $5? I think no.
So, I agree overall with the caution in Clallamity Jen's post, but I think a targeted act of protest of this specific $5 fee could be successful.
Clallam County overview of Property Tax foreclosure: https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/1077/Tax-Foreclosure-Sales
January 2025 list of delinquent taxes: https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24065/ATTACHMENT-FOR-CERT-08292025?bidId=
December 2025 list of foreclosure sales: https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25904/FINAL---ATTACHMENT-FOR-CERT---SALE-PRICES?bidId=
Note, all of the foreclosures involved delinquencies in the four or five figures. The smallest delinquency that resulted in foreclosure in 2025 was $2,264.
How do you separate the $5 fee from your tax statement.Your tax statement will have 2 6 month installments with all taxes itemized and then added together.You don't have a choice you pay it all or treasurer will not except payment which leads to penalties if late.Go 2 years without full payment then foreclosure process proceeds.
I pay my property taxes quarterly, by check. I plan to write the check for $5 less.
I do agree with you that the treasurer has the ability to reject partial payments. But, that forces the issue in a way that I like. Is the County ready to reject a payment for the vast majority of the taxes, standing on the absolute need of this $5 fee? Seems to me that if enough of us do it they'd face a choice of either having a revenue short fall by rejecting all of these partial payments, or they would accept the payments less the fee.
I also like the two year timeline, by that point, we could potentially have two new county commissioners, and a new board at CCCD. Maybe by the time we get there we have enough opposition that the whole thing is dropped.
Treasurer lens clarification:
Even though the CCD assessment is called a rate or charge rather than a property tax, once it is placed on the tax roll it is collected and enforced in the same manner as property taxes. If it is not paid in full, the unpaid amount may become delinquent, accrue penalties and interest, and result in a lien against the property.
This response models how an individual commissioner can acknowledge a constituent’s frustration while clearly explaining legal limits, consequences of non-payment, and the appropriate channels for lawful civic engagement.
Good-governance modeled reply:
Dear Constituent,
I understand why you’re frustrated, and I want to be clear and honest with you about what I can—and cannot—do as an individual commissioner.
The $5 rate/charge adopted for the Clallam Conservation District is a lawfully authorized assessment attached to the parcel, not a voluntary fee. If it is not paid, the county is required by state law to treat it the same way it treats other unpaid property-related charges: it becomes delinquent, interest and penalties accrue, and a lien ultimately attaches to the property. I do not have the authority to waive that consequence, and the county cannot suspend enforcement based on protest or intent.
I also want to be clear that withholding payment does not create policy leverage. Counties are obligated to follow statutory collection processes, not renegotiate adopted charges through non-payment. In practice, the financial and legal risk falls on the individual property owner long before it meaningfully affects county operations.
Where your input does matter—and where I can help—is in the lawful governance channels:
• Participating in public hearings
• Submitting written testimony for the record
• Requesting future changes to how rates are structured or justified
• Asking the Board to revisit findings, reporting, or accountability measures going forward
If you’d like, I’m willing to help you frame your concerns in a way that is formally preserved in the public record and directed to the Board at the right point in the process. That approach protects you, respects the law, and is the most effective way to influence future decisions.
My responsibility is to be transparent with you about how the system actually works—even when that answer isn’t what people want to hear—and to help you engage in a way that doesn’t put your property at risk.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam county board of commissioners
Many years ago i was a day late on payment and my check was returned and a new amount with the late fee was attached which was only good for a x number of days then higher fee's were threatened.I believe board commissioners just voted to raise our property tax roll rates.Keep us posted on your $5 dispute so we can see if c.county has changed it's policy.
Scandalous, we need grass roots effort to put out the vote.
Thank you for this insight into what is happening with the CCD!