[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5977344,"mediaKeyId","5809844-ced923f9a316137d2beac86e5fa56f56","parentId",5809844,"title","Anacortes staff outline capital‑facilities requests and warn of REET, utility gaps","audioSeconds",2276,"startMs",3972000,"endMs",6248000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5809844-ced923f9a316137d2beac86e5fa56f56&start=3972&end=6248","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5809844-ced923f9a316137d2beac86e5fa56f56/thumbnail_3972000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5977344/Anacortes/Skagit-County/Washington/Anacortes-staff-outline-capitalfacilities-requests-and-warn-of-REET-utility-gaps","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977344-edc7fd88a13f924be5663b55b26ae72f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582445&Signature=SQVcMt2MhzfmYwLNcHbSzQNMq42004dSmAcwVW5w4varbuyfX5JesbIHY8TUStpZjjwdVJKp3m5h69lHJI7EYx1N9e4cKDPvPWv98VTdh-WFwsMs5cmbTTrejN9i2Gj5bRlALnFCOrLQ1i9H5YAGESBHgKU7S0xGwMIM8-DEcsfvNMtpEGyYKqUzsE0C4782SZnmNQfHEdUDXXg2lFoS-RwzzNdwssNIW9YaJWe5xxRkSZ0Vs8myfbbX~YAIIhdGSuzFXMBlm2EUzt0d1XhE02CXShU80Pvj65F2nntHDf1zzteufjp3f01fYSl6vOHSDu9~DhitpeQoQoMewHEfxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Anacortes, WA","date","2025-09-23T00:00:00Z","article","City staff presented the draft 2026–2031 Capital Facilities Plan to the Anacortes City Council on Sept. 22 and warned that current Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) balances and projected collections will not meet the full list of transportation, facilities and park requests without prioritization or new revenue. Steve Hoagland and the public works team told council the city had roughly $4.3 million in REET cash on hand as of Sept. 17 but that projects already budgeted for 2025 would reduce available funds and leave the city with limited new REET for 2026 projects.

The plan matters because REET, utilities and grant income fund most public‑works construction; shortages require councils to choose which projects to move forward, delay or repackage. Hoagland walked council through water, storm, wastewater, operations/facilities and transportation requests and said staff will recommend prioritizing a subset of projects and bringing quarterly budget updates to council.

Public‑works staff showed multi‑year funding scenarios for water, storm and wastewater utilities and presented revenue options: a $5 per month equivalent rate increase for stormwater and water and a 6 percent increase for wastewater were modeled as ways to partially close gaps. For example, staff said a $5 per equivalent residential unit increase on the storm fund would produce roughly $400,000–$500,000 annually; a 6 percent wastewater increase would generate roughly $500,000 annually. Steve Hoagland emphasized those figures are model outputs and that any rate action would be subject to public hearings and formal ordinance changes.

Hoagland also described utility‑specific projects in the 2026 program: Oak Harbor‑Anacortes waterline upgrades (a multi‑year project with cost sharing), a 20‑Ninth Street reservoir project, pipeline replacements and water treatment plant repairs. He said the city has approximately $3 million held from Oak Harbor related to an intertie project and that regional customers pay their share for refinery segments.

On transportation, staff presented a long list of proposed projects — pavement maintenance, ADA improvements, Commercial Avenue and Oak Avenue safety enhancements and the Twelfth & Commercial intersection work — and noted some projects are contingent on grant awards (TIB and other state or federal grants) or on statewide supply constraints (for example, traffic signal poles are delayed). Staff said some projects previously scheduled for 2025 have rolled into 2026 because design or material lead times prevented completion this year.

For city facilities and operations, staff proposed allocating a limited REET total to facilities work in 2026 (staff suggested an example allocation such as $800,000) and asked council to accept an approach where facilities would work through a prioritized project list until the allocated REET is expended, then return for reallocation decisions. Councilmembers requested a clearer narrative on individual projects and suggested staff include more descriptive justifications (for example, “replace roof and fascia” for the Depot Plaza entry) and a ranked list the council can track.

Councilmembers pressed staff on reporting cadence and prioritization. Several members said they want measurable targets and quarterly reporting on permit and capital plan performance; Councilmember McDougall asked staff to make project reserves and intergovernmental balances (for example, Oak Harbor funds) clearer on summary pages. Hoagland and finance staff agreed to provide more explicit fund allocations and to show which projects are funded by utility rates, which by REET and which by grants.

Staff warned that if the council opts not to raise utility rates, the utilities’ capital programs will be limited and the city will need to consider operating cuts or deferrals. No rate changes or ordinance amendments were adopted at the meeting; staff said any rate change would require a separate public hearing and formal council action. Council directed staff to include prioritization and more granular project descriptions in the next CFP iteration and to present options for balancing REET, grants and utility revenues at the October budget meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Anacortes - City Council Meeting, 9/22/25 (Zoom Livestream)","oneSentenceSummary","Public works and finance staff presented the city’s draft capital facilities plan, showing near‑term Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) constraints and utility funding shortfalls; staff offered options including phased projects, modest utility rate increases and prioritization of REET allocations.","taxTitle","Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington","taxId",51056,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5977349,"City releases Matrix report recommending 60 improvements to Anacortes permitting process",1595,769000,2364000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5809844-ced923f9a316137d2beac86e5fa56f56&start=769&end=2364","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5809844-ced923f9a316137d2beac86e5fa56f56/thumbnail_769000.jpg","/articles/5977349/Anacortes/Skagit-County/Washington/City-releases-Matrix-report-recommending-60-improvements-to-Anacortes-permitting-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977349-98cab27fcc118b55f1bf0f744f55aaaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582445&Signature=OGT3KRhP0~txwDInjQd0JO~2uveaX4liU0nMptfrlz1Of2cB4A2iP4DV~e-WJoTEaEwibwWWsstxfzHlGyN-pWxByl7HyYKsHv592WibiO4ykwHeBNLecQgjSbnQ2p3NC5Ul18RRHHGBQsZ1wQMVanQGwV7R0PrIQh4FgZCuhb8OIvtAHg0r-6vU-Lz2HNxLuOZYpR5W04e6zjCkHx~iyLDL~ZIjJCd2rHk4TiSEOZv1WIlOYnlutCPJnXYDvzEjTQ6SRmqIRzUrKVqz7frx3taGlnhlmK0kl1IAltVtPc1vZMRrQ2yDardpv-OHsKs7erqC0U9HKsn4wXg1GKKC5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Matrix Consulting Group presented final findings on Sept. 22 after a six‑month review of Anacortes’ development review process, telling the City Council the city has engaged staff and a set of concrete fixes but will need time and modest staffing changes to implement them. Allison Brecke, manager with Matrix Consulting Group, told the council the firm found about “60 recommendations” and that one of Anacortes’ strengths is “the group of staff who are motivated and supportive of improvement efforts.”

The report matters because the city’s permitting timelines and customer experience affect housing, commercial projects and shoreline reviews; Matrix’s recommendations aim to make the process more predictable and transparent to applicants and staff. The consultant recommended formalized intake checklists for 25 common processes, clearer staff roles and responsibilities, adoption of development review mission and goals, improved SmartGov configuration and reporting, and options for limited third‑party review on large projects.

City staff said they will prioritize a subset of the recommendations for immediate work. John Coleman, planning director, told the council staff identified about 27 “highest” priorities and have already begun drafting a mission statement and flowcharts. Coleman said the city expects the final checklists to be delivered this week and that staff will form a permitting center management team that includes the planning manager, the city engineer, the building official, Coleman and a central administrator to coordinate development review. Coleman said the team has flagged training, onboarding, and a clarified intake/complete‑application process as initial priorities.

Matrix’s technology recommendations included improving the applicant instructions in the SmartGov customer portal, consolidating and simplifying permit workflows, and boosting reporting capability so staff and council can monitor backlog and processing times. Brecke said the city is already using SmartGov but that “the maintenance aspect is highly time consuming and that is falling right now all on the development review staff.”

The report also recommended several regulatory changes for council consideration: finalizing a city ordinance on review timelines to conform with state requirements, assessing whether certain quasi‑judicial applications should go to the hearing examiner, expanding administrative approvals for defined project types, and adopting a fee‑in‑lieu sidewalk program to give infill applicants alternatives to immediate frontage improvements. Brecke also noted the city could consider raising some SEPA exempt levels consistent with WAC, “very dependent on what the community feels comfortable with.”

On staffing, Matrix recommended an additional full‑time equivalent position split between permanent intake/issuance and leadership support; the consultant also suggested an on‑call pool of third‑party planning and engineering reviewers when workloads exceed staff capacity. Coleman said staff agrees there is a need for one additional FTE “to help with the permanent intake and issuance part.”

Councilmembers praised the report but pressed staff on specifics and timing. Councilmember Walters said it was “one of the best reports that I've read in my time on city council” and urged clear performance targets. Several councilmembers asked for quarterly or semiannual performance reporting from SmartGov once reporting templates are set up. Coleman said staff aims to provide regular reports and to set internal targets once process changes are implemented.

No formal council action was taken on the report at the meeting; staff said the presentation is intended to inform budget and implementation planning. Coleman and staff asked the council to review the draft checklists and development regulation updates posted on the planning department website and said some high‑priority implementation work would be proposed for the 2026 budget. Coleman told council the blue‑highlighted items in staff’s tracking document are the tasks they aim to complete by the end of the year.

The presentation and council discussion included multiple public‑business and staff‑level clarifications but did not produce an ordinance or vote. Staff said they will return with implementation steps, potential budget requests for 2026, and regular performance reporting so council can evaluate whether changes reduce backlog and shorten permit timelines.","A Matrix Consulting Group review of Anacortes’ development review recommended roughly 60 actions including formalized checklists, clearer roles, SmartGov improvements and a proposed management team; council and staff outlined immediate priorities and no formal vote was taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Anacortes staff outline capital‑facilities requests and warn of REET, utility gaps

City releases Matrix report recommending 60 improvements to Anacortes permitting process