The first assessment proposed in decades for Diking District 2 property owners will not move forward next year as planned.

During a well-attended and cordial meeting Saturday morning, district commissioners voted unanimously not to proceed with the measure, which would have approved collection in 2015. Instead, the board committed to working with the community to rethink the existing proposal, specifically the assessment method, in hopes of passing a revised and widely-supported assessment for 2016.

The decision was something of a surprise as the board had worked on the levy for months, and its passage seemed a near certainty, but board members were swayed by testimony from a healthy crowd of concerned district property owners.

“I was prepared to charge ahead because I felt we needed to get something in place … but the input we received has caused me to take whole new look at this,” Commissioner Daryl Vander Pol said.

“I would rather back off to get it as right as reasonably possible the first time,” he added.

“I don’t think it’s worth poisoning the well to push too quickly,” Commissioner Carolyn Geise added.

Diking District 2 is located in the lower valley of the Maxwelton watershed. To fund tide gate maintenance and administrative costs, such as liability insurance, the board proposed the first assessment in recent memory that would collect $12,500 from 55 property owners using a $45-per-acre charge.

While many in the community bristled at the prospects of funding work that would help drain agricultural fields, claiming the benefits to homeowners or non-farmed parcels were unclear, farmers also complained about the district’s tax proposal, and such arguments merited reconsideration, commissioners said. Board members came up with the per-acre charge as an attempt to shoulder the most financial burden of the proposal, as agricultural fields would see direct benefit, but several farmers testified that the collection method was unfair and might leave the district on soggy legal ground.

“The amount drawn has to equal the benefit,” said Ray Gabelein, a South Whidbey farmer and former Diking District 1 commissioner in the Useless Bay area.

Recently involved in a community squabble over tide gate work there, and a subsequent and personal lawsuit over the matter, he argued that assessing property owners on valuation would be more legally sustainable due to recent court precedent. He also noted that it would be a far more equitable means of collection, especially for struggling farmers.

Many fertile fields have been abandoned in recent years, he said, either from flooding or pressures on agriculture, and are now overgrown with weeds. He asked the board to consider who stands to gain the most: farmers with a lot of unused and cheap land or homeowners?

“Is it as much benefit to someone who has a cattail patch or a well or septic system … something to think about,” Gabelein said.

He added that such an assessment would be “another nail in the coffin of agriculture,” an industry struggling under economic and regulatory pressures.

Bill Steiner, a longtime farmer and former district commissioner, also argued for a valuation-based assessment, as opposed to one based on a per-acre charge, which he said would hit property owners with lots of cheap land hard.

“There seems to be an inequity here,” Steiner said.

“I have a big assessment and the land is only worth $40,000,” he said.

He claimed his fields resulted in very little profit, and that while it would be nice to simply pay for the needed tide gate maintenance, he doesn’t have the resources and would “like to survive too.”

Steiner also addressed environmentalists, some of whom expressed interest in a future that focused more on conservation rather than drainage maintenance.

“There’s been a suggestion to take the tide gate out and let the water flow in,” he said. “That’s a lot of foo-foo dust.”

The district was created to address drainage issues, he said, and removing the gate would be contrary to that aim by resulting in mass flooding.

According to district commissioners, the tide gate has been in place for nearly a century, with a major renovation about 20 years ago. It’s uncertain whether anyone specifically suggested the gate’s removal during the meeting, but competing agricultural and conservation/education interests have been a touchy issue in the area for years.

“There’s enough bad blood in this valley to drown a rabid bat,” said Jonathan Evelegh, a district homeowner.

A vocal critic of the proposal, Evelegh has objected to the measure on the grounds that it seemed to cater to farmers. Concerned about what an assessment would mean in terms of the district’s future, he voiced support for a community discussion about the district, but went further and proposed an alternative vision of a conservation area that included a fish ladder, boardwalks over wildlife areas and preservation areas named after historic area figures.

“I would really propose we take a look at this on a wider level,” Evelegh said.

He wasn’t the only one to voice concern about the assessment, and the district’s ultimate future. Agricultural benefits don’t necessarily equal benefits on a district-wide scale, said Tom Leschine, a district property owner.

“1914 was a long time ago,” he said.

“I think the vision needs to be developed,” Leschine said.

If the board agreed with a new vision for the future, one focused on conservation, they didn’t put it into words. Members did vocalize support and thanks, however, for the testimony of farmers.

Recently appointed Commissioner Carolyn Geise, a Seattle architect who raised alpaca in the district, said she was “blown away” to learn of the agricultural and environmentalist “camps” that dominated the area when she moved to Maxwelton, but said the fact is the district exists and commissioners have a responsibility to manage the area.

“The drainage ditches aren’t draining,” she said. “What are we supposed to do, sue the beavers?”

She said she likes the “frogs” too, but added, “I just don’t want them where I’m trying to grow hay.”

Gabelein also suggested looking at a greater tax base as drainage issues across the whole valley end up at the tide gate, and Geise said it made sense to investigate that.

“We should get some compensation from that,” she said.

Commissioner Mike Brixner thanked Gabelein for his educational comments, and said it was clear that a discussion about valuation was needed.

Commissioner Vander Pol agreed, saying the board’s initial attempt for farmers to heft most of the financial weight may have been unwise. He and his wife Claudia own much land and were ready to take on the burden, but he said the testimony of fellow farmers was compelling.

“Being generous may not be smart,” Vander Pol said.

The board agreed that waiting, and working with the community to come up with a district supported proposal, made the most sense.

Finally, responding to criticisms about better communication with the public, Geise made it clear that the board has struggled as an organizing group of elected officials and even admitted to accidentally running afoul of state open public meeting laws in preparation for Saturday’s meeting by speaking with other commissioners outside of the public’s view.

“We’re trying to be legal but I broke the law the past two or three days,” she said.

Before the meeting ended, board members and those in the audience discussed ways of getting the word out about future meetings and ways of better involving valley residents in district business.