Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves interlocal and sends Fidalgo metropolitan park district (pool) proposition to voters; public urges ballot clarity
Summary
The Anacortes City Council on July 28 authorized an interlocal to place a limited-purpose metropolitan park district for the Fidalgo pool campus on the November ballot and adopted Resolution 31-84 requesting the proposition be submitted to voters.
The Anacortes City Council on July 28 approved an interlocal agreement with the Fidalgo Parks and Recreation District assigning election responsibilities for a November ballot measure and adopted Resolution 31-84 requesting that voters consider creating a Fidalgo Metropolitan Park District (MPD) limited to operating the Fidalgo pool and fitness center campus.
Why it matters: If voters approve the proposition, the new MPD would levy property taxes within authorized limits to fund operations for the pool campus and create a five-member board to govern the district. The measure narrows the districts stated purpose to the pool campus; the change from a broad-purpose MPD to a special-purpose MPD was requested by the pool district and affects future taxing and borrowing options.
Staff member Swetnam briefed council that the pool district requested the district be "limited purpose" and that the ballot language now describes the district as established "to operate the Fidalgo pool and fitness center campus." She noted the ballots are subject to a 75-word limit under state law.
Public commenters raised concerns about ambiguity in the draft language. Cindy Camp, who identified herself as a resident of Guimas Island, asked the council to add explicit limits to the ballot language, saying, "Levy funds shall be used solely for o and m with no diversion to debt service without voter approval." Camp also urged language limiting commissioner salaries and exploring alternative board formats (for example, ex-officio or mixed boards) before finalizing the ballot materials.
Council members and staff responded that statutory powers of MPDs remain but that major capital borrowing typically would require voter approval. Swetnam and councilmembers said that the proposed ballot language and the districts special-purpose designation narrow the districts stated focus to the pool campus and that the district can pursue additional funding measures in the future. Councilmember Walters said the revised language "restricted the uses of this Metropolitan Park District to what I think we all understood was the use, the pool and the pool campus." He moved approval of the interlocal; that motion passed by roll call. Councilmember McDougall moved adoption of Resolution 31-84; the motion carried by roll call.
Actions and votes recorded on the dais: council authorized the interlocal agreement for election responsibilities (motion by Hubick, second by Young; roll-call vote: Young: yes; Walters: yes; Cleland McGrath: yes; Moulton: yes; McDougall: yes; Heavic/Hubick: yes; Fantini: yes). The council then voted to adopt Resolution 31-84 (motion by McDougall; second by Hubick), again passing on roll call.
Next steps: staff will submit final ballot materials in coordination with the county and the pool district; the pool district will also place commissioner positions on the ballot, per the pool districts process. Several councilmembers asked the pool district to keep refining ballot language for clarity before printing, and public commenters urged additional explicit limits on levy use and commissioner compensation.
Ending: The councils votes put a limited-purpose Fidalgo MPD proposition on the November ballot and formalized the citys election-role interlocal; ultimate authority to form the district will rest with voters.
