Clallam County subcommittee forwards proposed charter amendment requiring county responses to land transfers

A Clallam County Charter Review Commission subcommittee voted unanimously to forward to the full commission a recommendation that a proposed charter amendment on land acquisitions be reconsidered at the initial (stage 1) level and that no changes to the language are necessary.

The measure would require the Board of County Commissioners to respond to requests from state and federal agencies about potential transfers or acquisitions of land "where such transfers or acquisitions would affect the county's taxing, legislative, regulatory and or law enforcement jurisdiction," and would require the county comprehensive plan to be amended by July 1, 2027, to set standards for those responses, including options to recommend denial, approval or conditioning of transfers.

Why it matters: Committee members and public commenters said transfers of land into trust or other federal or state control can remove properties from the county tax rolls and shift jurisdictional responsibilities. "It goes beyond just the BIA issue," said Linda Nakamura during the public comment period, referencing the Bureau of Indian Affairs. "When Congress changes a designation to wilderness, that changes jurisdictional issues for the state in the form of harvest taxes," she added.

What happened at the meeting: Committee member Ron Richards read the proposed amendment into the record and proposed forwarding it to the Charter Review Commission for reconsideration at stage 1. Richards read the amendment text in full and proposed language that would require the commissioners to respond and set standards allowing responses to address "both the positive and or the negative impacts" of transfers. After brief edits to remove a phrase saying the proposal's "importance is more evident now," committee members voted to forward the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Public comment: Members of the public urged the subcommittee to recommend a formal county response and to document the expected county role. Ed Bowen told the committee that "our government's failure to do its responsible role" left local taxing districts vulnerable in some past cases. A public commenter cited an estimate included in the meeting discussion that property tax losses from recent transfers could total about $3,000,000 annually across taxing districts, and another comment noted a sheriff's office payment of about $300,000 a year that helped fund two deputy positions assigned in part to tribal areas.

Next steps: Committee members asked staff to place the recommendation on the commission's business agenda and to send the motion language and supporting materials to the full Charter Review Commission for reconsideration. The subcommittee did not adopt the amendment as a charter change during the meeting; it chose to forward the proposal for stage-1 reconsideration with no additional edits.

The full text of the proposed amendment was read into the record during the meeting. The committee's action was limited to forwarding the proposal and documenting a recommendation; it did not itself enact changes to the county charter or the comprehensive plan.