Charter review panel debates tribal trust land transfers, urges study and public outreach

Members of the Charter Review Commission discussed concerns about federal trust transfers of land to the Jamestown Tribe, the effect of those transfers on county jurisdiction and tax base, and a proposed amendment that would require a study of the impacts.

Public comment opened the discussion. Ed Bowen, identifying himself as a resident with a PO Box in Columba, said the jurisdictional question goes beyond taxation: "There's actually 4 of them, 4 levels, as determined by the Eisenhower report back in the early sixties," Bowen said, arguing the commission should consider constitutional and jurisdictional implications of transfers the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Department of the Interior process.

John Worthington of Sequim told the commission he had filed an objection to a land acquisition and said he remains concerned about the Jamestown Tribe's current location, safety and long-term land‑use planning: "I did file and have received notice that they obtained my file objecting to the land acquisition," he said, and urged commissioners to consider relocation and hazard risks.

Commission members exchanged several substantive concerns in the discussion. Commissioners noted a draft letter discussed at a recent county commission work session and said that draft had not been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioners and commenters pointed to a county GIS map the group said shows a "checkerboard" pattern of federal, state and tribal holdings in parts of the East End and warned that additional trust conversions could reduce the county tax base and complicate consistent land‑use planning.

At least one commissioner described a proposed amendment to the commission's draft as including a requirement for a study to identify "pros and cons" and the factors the county should consider before responding to federal requests. Commissioners discussed whether the commission should seek a charter amendment, issue a recommendation, or provide input to the county commissioners and to the Department of the Interior/BIA when the federal government requests local comment on trust transfers.

The commission also discussed outreach: holding additional meetings in affected districts, sharing the GIS map with the full commission and county, and attending local business or chamber gatherings to solicit public comment. Commissioners debated whether such appearances should be made as individuals or as commission representatives and noted standard public‑meeting posting requirements for offsite meetings.

Procedural items: commissioners agreed to postpone a CRIB agenda item and to delay distribution of minutes because a member's laptop containing materials was unavailable. The group also scheduled its next meeting by voice vote for the time the commission discussed (participants said the group favored Tuesday the ninth in the afternoon) and agreed staff or a member would circulate logistics and a meeting posting. No final policy adopting or blocking trust transfers was taken at the meeting; commissioners focused on analysis, outreach and coordination with the county commission and federal reviewers.

Why it matters: commissioners and public speakers said trust transfers affect local land use, taxation and regulatory jurisdiction; any formal change depends on federal processes at the BIA/Department of the Interior and may have lasting impacts on commercial parcels and county planning.

Next steps noted in the meeting included circulating the GIS map to commissioners, drafting or refining the proposed amendment language that would require a study of impacts, and scheduling public outreach in East End communities and Sequim. The commission set a follow‑up meeting date and requested that the member with the laptop recover and circulate the outstanding minutes and documents before the next meeting.