Clallam County committee weighs charter amendment requiring review when land moves to federal trust

Commissioner Richards, a member of the Clallam County Charter Review Commission Land Acquisition Committee, opened a public hearing Thursday with a reminder that the panel lacked a quorum and could not take formal action but would hear public input on a proposed charter amendment that would require the county to analyze and formally comment on transfers of property from the tax rolls to federal trust status.

The amendment under discussion would add a requirement for an analysis of the pros and cons of transfers into federal trust, require that analysis be included as an element of the county comprehensive plan, and require county commissioners to respond to Bureau of Indian Affairs requests for comment. Richards said the federal process currently asks counties to comment and that, “If there's no comment from the governments at least, the BIA assumes everything is fine, and that the governments actually approve the transfer.”

Why it matters: speakers tied the proposed change to local tax revenue, land-use authority and county planning. Committee members and public commenters said transfers removed parcels from the county’s zoning and comprehensive-plan jurisdiction and could reduce the taxable base, forcing higher taxes or fees on remaining taxpayers.

Committee member Kathy framed the local impacts in practical terms, saying that when properties move off the tax rolls “the cost of doing business and the cost of owning a home go up.” She added, “When we don't investigate or challenge the possible tax loss ... we're not doing right by our people.” Several members of the public echoed concerns about tax revenue and local regulation.

Speakers discussed how federal trust status is created and who the decision-makers are. Ed Bowen, a longtime resident who described different forms of federal ownership, summarized the county’s legal exposure: “The federal government only have the same jurisdictional interest that any private property owner would” unless state statutes or specific agreements provide otherwise. Bowen urged the committee to create a charter provision giving the county standing to require and present formal analyses to federal agencies.

Public commenters offered multiple local examples. One Sequim resident, John Worthington, said he has “been promoting having the tribes have their own dot on the map” and argued that scattered tribal parcels (“checkerboarding”) interfere with county planning and services. Other speakers described a separate, state-level process to shift state-managed trust lands (school-capital trust and DNR lands) out of production — a process that, if combined with subsequent federal trust placement, could remove timber and excise-tax revenues that currently fund county services.

Committee members and attendees repeatedly framed the proposal as a procedural, not adversarial, change: several participants said the amendment would not prevent any transfer but would ensure the county documents likely impacts and reports them to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other agencies. Commissioner Richards and Rod Fleck said county staff and commissioners had told the committee that they lacked firm local standards to evaluate these petitions and that the charter amendment would prompt the planning commission and county to develop those standards.

Attendees asked for data and mapping on existing trust and non-tax parcels. Susan (no last name given) pressed for facts on how much land in Clallam County is in federal trust, state trust, or otherwise excluded from the tax base; several speakers recommended that the committee ask the county assessor and county staff for a map and a quantitative inventory before finalizing language.

No formal votes or motions were taken; the committee did not reach a quorum and plans to continue discussion at a future meeting. Commissioner Richards closed the hearing with thanks to committee staff and volunteers and said the group will coordinate next steps with county staff and committee members online.

Ending: The proposal before the committee is procedural — it would require county analysis and formal comment — but supporters and critics said additional local facts (a map of trust parcels and an estimate of lost tax and excise revenues) are needed before a final recommendation to the full charter commission or to voters.