A Clallam County advisory committee spent its meeting reviewing and editing a proposed charter amendment to create a water-resources specialist position, an accompanying ad hoc hiring committee and related recommendations for job duties and qualifications.

The group discussed placing the position under the Department of Community Development (DCD), how to limit costs and politicization, and whether the county should prioritize consolidating existing water data rather than repeatedly hiring outside contractors. Paul (committee chair) led the session; Ron (committee member) described edits he had made to an earlier draft and walked participants through responses to comments from Bowen Kendrick (PUD), Craig Smith and Tony Corrado and Hansi Halls of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Committee members said a central concern is ensuring the role provides technical water-resources data and analysis that can be used countywide rather than creating a new, politicized bureaucracy. Ron argued the position and its responsibilities belong under the DCD and said he restored language addressing an ad hoc committee and cost concerns after reviewing outside comments. He also cited what he described as a county budget reserve, saying, “$14,000,000 surplus in the bridal expense account,” as context for affordability concerns raised by members and some public commenters.

Members debated specific points: whether the charter language should require licensing or instead emphasize demonstrated expertise; the ad hoc committee’s composition; the length of committee terms; and how to describe the position’s duties. On qualifications, some members favored referring to “expertise” and to the position’s ability to collect, consolidate and analyze county water data rather than listing specific degrees or third‑party certifications. Christy (committee member) and others warned that requiring a particular license could exclude qualified candidates, while Dana and others urged clearer technical qualifications to avoid ambiguity in hiring.

On committee composition, the group returned repeatedly to a previous draft that proposed three county staff representatives (from Public Works, DCD and Environmental Health) plus four community members, two selected by the DCD and two selected by the Board of County Commissioners. Members discussed whether the DCD director should sit on the hiring committee; several said the director should not be a voting member to reduce the appearance of politicization.

Participants also debated term length for appointed members. Ron initially proposed two‑year terms but many members argued for longer terms to provide continuity for technical research; the group favored extending terms and discussed four years as a reasonable period to allow the specialist to complete multi‑year projects.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized leveraging existing studies and data rather than discarding prior work. Paul and others said the county should “leverage decades of prior studies” while consolidating and updating key datasets. Ron gave an example of past county work he said illustrates the cost of piecemeal action: Environmental Health contracted a hydrologist, the county later spent on injection facilities, and “they’ve spent millions” to respond to earlier project choices rather than addressing countywide data continuity up front.

A member of the public, Diana Henderson (resident/public commenter), spoke during the meeting’s public‑comment period and said she remained opposed to creating the position on cost grounds: “You have still not convinced me that this position is worth any expense at this time,” she said.

No formal vote on the charter amendment occurred during this session. Committee members instructed staff to circulate a redline and clean version of the edited draft, to compile and share received comments, and to draft recommended job duties and qualifications for review at the next meeting. The committee scheduled a follow‑up meeting for Wednesday, July 9 (time window provided 9 a.m.–12 p.m.) to continue deliberations.

Members said they would prepare a short Q&A and a detailed response to commenter concerns for the next meeting, and several participants volunteered to draft recommended duties and qualification language for internal review before sharing more widely.