CLALLAM COUNTY, Wash. — The Clallam County Charter Review Commission Water Committee on July 21 finished edits to a recommendation and a public Q&A that accompany a proposed charter amendment to create or retain a county water-resources specialist, and agreed to seek written input from stakeholders before the full commission considers the amendment.

“My understanding of where we stand is that the actual charter amendment has been…voted on by the commission, so we can't really do anything about that,” Paul Pickett, chair of the Water Committee, said during the meeting, describing the amendment as now scheduled for the next commission meeting. The committee nonetheless refined the recommendation and public-facing Q&A that would accompany the amendment if it goes forward.

The committee’s work focused on two areas: the job qualifications for the proposed specialist and the public-facing language explaining how the position could be funded. Members debated whether to list specific degrees and minimum years of experience or to use broader, open-ended language that would allow candidates with nontraditional backgrounds but relevant skills to qualify. After discussion the committee removed a redundant item in the qualifications list and agreed to tighten wording to refer to a bachelor-level degree (or higher) that provides the “necessary expertise” — with examples such as hydrology or geology listed as illustrative rather than exclusive.

Committee members also removed a sentence they considered duplicative (referred to in the draft as item 5) and discussed whether to keep a stated minimum of three years’ experience; the final draft leans toward describing “professional experience that provides relevant water-data collection, analysis and reporting skills” without a strict minimum-year requirement, while retaining hydrology and geology among example fields.

On funding, members debated how to answer public concerns that the county “can’t afford” a new position. Committee participants cited the county’s emergency reserve and the county’s current expense fund during that exchange. The draft Q&A states that the county has an emergency reserve “over $13,000,000 and growing” and notes the county’s current expense fund is roughly $56,000,000. Committee members discussed published cost estimates for the position ranging roughly between $108,000 and $125,000; the draft frames that as “less than 1% of the emergency reserve fund and less than one-fifth of 1% of the current expense fund budget.” The draft also says the Board of County Commissioners would have flexibility to include funding for the position as part of its routine budget balancing, “without increasing taxes,” language the committee agreed to keep for clarity.

Committee members discussed where the new position might be hosted. Some asked whether Washington State University Extension could house the role; the committee concluded that, while WSU Extension could propose contracting to provide the service, the county retains budgetary authority, and any contracting arrangement would be a separate process outside the amendment text.

The committee reviewed and agreed to send the revised recommendation and Q&A to stakeholders for comment. Paul Pickett and others said they would encourage utility and natural-resources stakeholders — including Owen Kendrick of the EUD and a natural-resources director who previously wrote the committee to express support — to submit letters or public comments to the commission’s designated contact, Lonnie, via email or the commission website. The committee discussed outreach logistics and agreed members could individually solicit letters; they also considered sending a reminder email to stakeholders summarizing the current status and how to submit comments.

Public comment was opened during the meeting; no members of the public offered remarks. The committee approved the meeting minutes by voice vote and later voted to adjourn; both votes were taken by voice and recorded as unanimous on the record.

The committee did not adopt or amend the resolution that would place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot during this meeting; members noted that the resolution language that already advanced to the next commission meeting is now controlled by the full commission and that only the commission can make substantive changes (which would return the item to an earlier step in the process). The Water Committee’s recommendation and Q&A are intended to accompany the commission’s consideration and, if the commission prefers, to be submitted as a recommendation even if the amendment language is handled separately.

The committee also discussed possible follow-up research, including whether a records request might show which county staff responded to a recent local spill, to illustrate how a water-resources specialist might augment county response and data collection during emergencies.

The committee will forward the revised documents to staff for distribution to commissioners and stakeholders ahead of the full Charter Review Commission meeting. The committee adjourned after completing the edits and confirming the notice and packet materials would be sent to Lonnie for circulation.