Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Department Of Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCD director: 'forest management' language in county charter is misleading; housing, water and industrial land need focus
Summary
Bruce Emery, Clallam County director of Community Development, told the Charter Review Commission that the phrase 'forest management' in his job description is misleading because the county does not manage forest land; he also addressed the county's housing needs, water planning, master plan schedule and staffing challenges for code enforcement.
Bruce Emery, Clallam County director of the Department of Community Development, urged the Charter Review Commission to remove or reword a reference to “forest management” from the DCD duties section of the county charter, saying the wording overstates the office’s role.
“There’s no forest owned by the county that the DCD manages,” Emery told commissioners. He explained DCD’s role is limited: the county applies its critical‑areas code and shoreline rules when private forest land is converted to other uses, and the Department of Natural Resources handles forest practice permits. “The primary manager of our forest is the Department of Natural Resources,” he said.
Emery reviewed several other program areas the commission has asked about. On the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program, Emery said the county completed its shoreline update in 2020 and that comprehensive‑plan updates are on a schedule the department expects to meet by year‑end, although staff has had to do extra work after consultant limitations.
On water management, Emery said the county should consider water stewardship but did not recommend creating a new charter office. He suggested the issue belongs in the comprehensive plan and countywide planning policies and that any stewardship role should be designed to coordinate across jurisdictions as conditions evolve.
Emery flagged housing and industrial land supply as major issues for the county. He said the state now requires housing needs to be allocated across income bands and that meeting demand for lower income brackets will require more opportunities for multi‑unit development within urban growth areas.
Commissioners pressed Emery on code enforcement staffing and process. Emery said the county currently has one full‑time field officer and a manager in code enforcement, with a recent loss of part‑time staffing; he described enforcement as resource‑intensive and noted that roughly 80% of cases resolve after outreach while the other 20% require escalation to hearings or legal action.
Emery said that some responsibilities in the charter are ambiguous and that cleaning up the wording — including removing or clarifying “forest management” — would reflect the department’s actual duties and reduce confusion about which body should represent the county in intergovernmental discussions about timber revenue and related policy.
Emery closed by offering to answer written follow‑up questions and by providing his county email for further contact.
