Members of a Clallam County Charter Review Commission subcommittee met to discuss a proposed resolution that would require the Board of County Commissioners to respond to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requests to put land into trust and to create standards in the county comprehensive plan for handling such requests.

The topic matters to county residents because placing land into trust can remove it from county tax rolls and local land‑use jurisdiction, participants said; the subcommittee agreed to gather legal and fiscal research, invite tribal and law‑enforcement representatives, and reconvene with homework reports.

The item grew out of an earlier Charter Review Commission tie vote on a related resolution. Commissioner Ron Richards was nominated and elected chair of this subcommittee; the group also accepted a volunteer to serve as record keeper. Committee members reviewed why the resolution was drafted: several commissioners had not been responding to BIA notices about proposed trust acquisitions, and the draft would require a formal county response and recommend comprehensive‑plan standards for evaluating requests.

Committee member Kathy (last name not specified) raised the fiscal concern: she said the county cannot “afford to lose our tax base,” warning that properties removed from the tax rolls could force higher property taxes for remaining taxpayers. Commissioner Jim Stauffer emphasized legal limits the county must respect, saying, “With the tribe, we have to respect the treaties and we have to respect the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Several public commenters urged stronger county review. John Worthington of Sequim criticized local practice and urged the county to contest certain BIA processes, saying, “we haven't been protecting our dots on the map,” and pointing committee members to federal regulation 25 CFR part 151 as the relevant rule for fee‑to‑trust acquisitions. Ed Bowen, a Clallam Bay resident, asked that the charter require the board to respond to BIA trust requests and to provide specific analyses on taxes and land‑use effects: “I expect the charter to set a standard and put in there just what is the obligatory duties of this county in dealing with those transfer requests.”

Committee members outlined immediate research tasks: review the BIA fee‑to‑trust handbook and 25 CFR part 151, gather maps showing current trust/reservation land, obtain analyses from the assessor and planning staff on permitting and fees, and clarify criminal‑jurisdiction agreements (MOUs) between tribes and local law enforcement. Several members asked staff to invite the sheriff and tribal representatives to future meetings and to provide prior legal opinions received by the Charter Review Commission for reconsideration.

The subcommittee set a follow‑up meeting for Aug. 13 (time listed in meeting notes as 1–3 p.m.) to review homework and to frame tasks for drafting or revising a proposed resolution. The group adjourned after a motion to adjourn passed by consensus.

The discussion mixed technical legal citations and local policy concerns; committee members repeatedly said they needed more formal legal advice, fiscal estimates from the assessor, and input from tribal and law‑enforcement officials before moving toward a final recommended charter amendment or resolution.