Skip to content

09/01/23 02 PM: Board Declares Chimacum Drainage District Inactive

Board Declares Chimacum Drainage District Inactive

The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to assess the inactivity of Drainage District No. 1 (Chimacum Drainage District), formed in 1919 for drainage and flood control in the Chimacum Valley, which has collected no assessments since the mid-1960s and lacked a governing board since 1974. Staff presented facts confirming it meets RCW 36.96 criteria for inactivity—no functions performed in the prior five years, no elections or appointments in seven years, and unauditable per state auditor records—and outlined options including declaration of inactivity with or without dissolution, reactivation, or repurposing for irrigation or watershed management. The Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 35-23 declaring the district inactive but not dissolving it, allowing time for stakeholder outreach via consultant Peak Sustainability and Conservation District efforts before future decisions.

Public Hearing and Determination of Status for Chimacum Drainage District (Drainage District No. 1)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:12.671–00:25:51.593 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, operations, infrastructure, land use

Summary

The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to assess the inactivity of Drainage District No. 1 (Chimacum Drainage District), formed in 1919 for drainage and flood control in the Chimacum Valley, which has collected no assessments since the mid-1960s and lacked a governing board since 1974. Staff presented facts confirming it meets RCW 36.96 criteria for inactivity—no functions performed in the prior five years, no elections or appointments in seven years, and unauditable per state auditor records—and outlined options including declaration of inactivity with or without dissolution, reactivation, or repurposing for irrigation or watershed management. The Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 35-23 declaring the district inactive but not dissolving it, allowing time for stakeholder outreach via consultant Peak Sustainability and Conservation District efforts before future decisions.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mark McCauley (County Administrator): Presented district history, map of boundaries covering under 400 tax parcels primarily in Chimacum/Port Hadlock/Port Townsend, RCW 36.96 inactivity criteria met, and staff recommendation to declare inactive without dissolution; noted prior meetings with stakeholders focused on outreach planning, with 3 landowners involved so far including Christy Kissler from conservation district.
  • Commissioner Eisenhour: Described conversations with conservation district and stakeholders interested in future use but no current plan; supported one-year period (to September 1, 2024) for due diligence on keeping, dissolving, or changing the district.
  • Commissioner Kate Dean: Asked about stakeholder process, consultant (Peak Sustainability), landowner engagement (2 meetings so far, limited participation), district size (~387 ownerships, 7,526 acres), potential boundary changes, and shape description from conservation report.
  • Commissioner Brotherton (Chair): Outlined procedure, opened/closed public testimony, summarized options, and moved for resolution adoption.
  • Joe Holtrop (Conservation District Director): Noted development of management plan funded by ecology grant via Environmental Health, coordinated with county outreach to identify problems, restoration opportunities, and lead organizations; clarified "pear-shaped" refers to watershed, not district boundaries.
  • Vivian Ericson (Peak Sustainability): Described early outreach focused on logistics for engaging landowners to inform future decisions.

Public Comments

  • Roger Short (1720 Center Road, Chimacum): Lived on Chimacum Creek 77 years; opposed taxation and activation without revamp into smaller sections for problem areas; supported keeping inactive to retain maintenance access along creek, which would be lost if dissolved; noted recent flooding affecting 50 acres due to lack of maintenance.
  • Jeff Chapman (County Assessor): Described county experience with 7 benefit assessment districts including Port Ludlow Drainage District managed by Public Works with no appeals; stated assessments can be set to satisfy property owners based on benefits.
  • No additional public comments from room or online.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • County Auditor memorandum (May 2023) triggered hearing per RCW 36.96 requirement by September 1, 2023.
  • 2022 Jefferson County Conservation District report detailed history (formed 1919, inactive 1974), watershed (37 sq mi, West/East Chimacum Creeks), issues (flooding, reed canarygrass, beavers), soils (hydric, prime farmland if drained), past work (1920s channelization), and options like reactivation with management plan; noted 7,526 acres, 387 ownerships, ~3,000 acres farmed.
  • Resolution No. 35-23 drafted by Barbara Ehrlichman declared district inactive per RCW 36.96; board decision aligned with updated staff recommendation for status quo (inactive, not dissolved) diverging from initial auditor suggestion to dissolve.
  • Packet noted $1,216.64 balance as of 2004; no fiscal impact from agenda request.

Financials

  • No district funds collected through assessments since mid-1960s.
  • Treasurer balance of $1,216.64 reported as of December 2004.
  • Whatcom County comparable districts: $2–$8 per acre annually, $2,000–$20,000 total; 2020 reed canarygrass removal: $62,500 for 5 miles.
  • Fixed costs if reactivated: public official bonds ($75/official), audit bond ($175), state audit (<$1,000 every 3 years), election expenses.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Declare inactive and leave in place (adopted; allows future reactivation/repurposing).
  • Declare inactive and dissolve it (auditor initial view; rejected to preserve maintenance access and allow stakeholder planning).
  • Reactivate in current form or repurpose for irrigation/watershed management (interest noted but no current plan; requires election/appointments and assessments).
  • No formal amendments to resolution; minor edits (period, clerk promotion) made on-screen.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Unanimously adopted Resolution No. 35-23 determining Chimacum Drainage District inactive pursuant to RCW 36.96 ("determining that the Chimacum Drainage District is inactive pursuant to chapter 36.96 of the revised code of Washington").
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: Commissioners Brotherton, Eisenhour, Dean).
  • Next Steps:
  • Continue stakeholder outreach via Peak Sustainability (focus on engagement logistics, landowner feedback) and Conservation District management plan (ecology grant-funded, identify problems/opportunities/leads).
  • Gather resident input and deliberate on dissolution, retention, or changes by September 1, 2024.
  • Potential future public hearing for final decision on district future.

Background Materials

Contents

AI Information