Charter review commission advances proposal to add county water resources specialist after heated public comment

The Clallam County Charter Review Commission voted to advance a proposed charter amendment that would require the Department of Community Development to retain a contracted water resources specialist, a nonregulatory position to collect and share water data, moving the measure to the next stage for public comment and further hearings.

The commission moved the proposal to step 3 after commissioners debated scope and budget. Commissioner Richards, who proposed the amendment package, framed the measure as a “technical” role, not regulatory: “We’re talking about a contract employee such as you would hire an architect,” he said during debate, adding the position would be flexible and bid competitively.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the county faces growing pressure on water supplies from development, climate shifts and competing users, and that shared technical data may be necessary to inform decisions. Opponents said the charter is not the proper place to create an ongoing county position and raised concerns about cost and governance.

Public commenters at the meeting expressed sharply divided views. Robert Wasallik of Sequim told commissioners, “I do not want a water commissioner in Clallam County telling me how to use my water,” and warned the role could become a costly bureaucracy. Denise Labio, another Sequim resident who has attended multiple charter review meetings, called the evolution of the idea “a bait and switch,” saying a volunteer concept had become a paid, staffed department in her view and that the public survey showed majority opposition.

Other residents and former county staff urged the commission to act. Anne Soule, who said she worked for Clallam County from 1991 to 2013 with the job title water resource specialist, told the commission she supported adding capacity and recommended housing the expertise outside of DCD if the role risked becoming regulatory. “Collecting information and data on water supplies and water use countywide is urgent,” she said.

Commission debate centered on placement, authority and cost. The text advanced by the commission specifies that the specialist would be retained by contract through DCD and would have “no water management, regulatory or enforcement authority.” The draft sets a four‑year contract term and a seven‑member ad hoc ranking committee for selecting bids composed of county staff and citizen appointees. The charter text also caps a procedural requirement that the position will not be refilled if the winning bid’s annual cost equals or exceeds the annual salary of a county commissioner; the amendment directs rebidding if a vacancy arises.

Opponents said those procedural elements did not remove the central objection that the charter is not the right place for a detailed personnel procedure. Commissioner Morris said she preferred the recommendation be handled outside the charter, and raised questions about alignment with county hiring practices and long‑term budget implications. County Administrator Todd Melfi later clarified in public comment that the county’s financial position is not a surplus of unrestricted funds; the county has a large emergency reserve but faces tight budget projections that could require expenditure reductions in the future.

Action taken: The commission voted in a roll call to advance the proposed amendment to the next step (public comment/hearing). The measure will be scheduled for additional public review at the commission’s next meeting and could appear on a future ballot only after the commission completes the charter process.

What’s next: The commission will accept public comment at the next step and the water committee and staff were asked to prepare clearer explanatory material and cost estimates. Commissioners who favored advancing the measure said they wanted voters to have the choice; opponents said they preferred the Board of County Commissioners consider staffing decisions through the county budget and hiring processes.

Ending: The vote to advance does not create the position; it sends the amendment to public comment and further commission consideration. If it remains on the charter and is approved in later steps, the authority to contract for the specialist would rest with the Department of Community Development under the terms included in the proposed charter language.