Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Land Transfer Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County, city and tribe discussed draft land-transfer agreement that would include payment-in-lieu-of-taxes and limited waiver for enforcement
Summary
At an open joint meeting, county officials and tribal leaders described a draft intergovernmental agreement intended to replace property tax payments with a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangement and to limit tribal sovereignty waivers to enforcement of that agreement; no formal action was taken — the session was informational.
Clallam County commissioners and tribal officials discussed a draft interagency agreement intended to accompany a land transfer, including a proposed payment in lieu of taxes and a limited waiver of sovereignty that would allow enforcement only for breaches of the agreement, during an informational joint meeting described by commissioners on May 6.
County officials said the draft agreement would let the tribal party continue payments that replace prior property taxes and would include a clause allowing the county or city to seek court enforcement only for items specifically covered by the agreement. Todd, a commissioner, described that enforcement provision as a key innovation: “It says that if there are any of the provisions that the parties, do not fulfill, that they will waive their sovereignty, and, can be taken to court for specifically the items in the agreement,” he said. Administrator Melki also referenced the document as comparable to a memorandum of understanding or interagency agreement and said it could be used as a model for future talks.
County speakers said the draft attempts to address a frequent problem with agreements involving sovereign tribal nations: how to ensure compliance when remedies typically involve federal courts. The draft, as described in the meeting, limits any sovereignty waiver to enforcement of the written terms of that agreement and expressly preserves sovereignty on matters outside the agreement’s scope. Commissioners and staff framed the discussion as exploratory and said the model could help create mutual trust among the county, the City of Forks and the tribe.
The commissioners stressed the meeting was a work session and open to the public; no vote or formal action was taken. Commissioners said the agreement remains a proposal to inform potential future negotiations and that further public discussion and legal review would be needed if the draft moves forward.
The county also discussed related topics at the joint session, including federal funding reductions affecting local programs and the tribe’s economic development work, but those items were presented as updates rather than decisions.
The meeting record shows the discussion occurred during an informational joint meeting; commissioners described the agreement as a potential path for future negotiations and did not adopt or authorize it at the May 6 meeting.
