Commissioners approve short-term criminal justice contract amendments with Sequim and Port Angeles amid public questions on costs

Clallam County commissioners on Dec. 30 approved short‑term amendments to long‑standing criminal justice interlocal agreements with the cities of Sequim and Port Angeles to ensure continuity of prosecution, public defense, district court and jail services from Jan. 1 through June 30 while staff and city partners reconcile cost data.

County staff said the contracts were originally adopted about a decade ago and contain limited termination language; recent changes in funding assumptions — including elimination of some legal‑financial obligations — reduced flexibility in prior calculations. "We wanted to make sure there was no break in services," county staff said, describing the amendments as short‑term measures to buy time while the county and cities finalize a longer‑term approach.

The county presented estimated figures used in the draft calculations: staff cited "700 and some odd thousand" as a rough annual calculation associated with Sequim and said Port Angeles' calculated annual cost is about $3.7 million versus what the city was previously paying (about $1.2 million), numbers staff described as the county's working figures during the negotiation and reconciliation process.

Commissioner discussion and public comment raised repeated concerns about transparency and whether those projected increases were included in the county's 2026 budget materials. County staff responded that the expected contract revenue had been incorporated into the 2026 projections and that the six‑month amendments include a reconciliation at the end of the term to align payments with actuals. Staff also said they have encouraged use of an independent third‑party consultant to review methodology; Sequim agreed to that approach earlier, the staff added.

Commissioners asked staff to modify signature pages to add lines for constitutional officers (for example, the prosecutor and the county clerk) as discussed during review; motions to approve the amendments with those signature‑line changes passed by voice vote.

What happens next: staff said they will continue data sharing with the cities, pursue reconciliation and anticipate drafting a new long‑term agreement after the six‑month window. The board also discussed the option of hiring or using an outside reviewer to verify cost methodologies.

Direct quotes and attributions in this article come from staff presentations and public comments recorded during the meeting.