Council pauses on Fidalgo pool's metropolitan park district language; legal questions about levy cap remain

Anacortes City Council and representatives of the Fidalgo Pool and Fitness Center on July 21 continued detailed negotiations over ballot language to place a metropolitan park district before voters, focusing on whether the district should be limited-purpose (which allows the city to state a maximum levy in the proposition) or broad-purpose (which the district's counsel said could preclude a city cap).

City staff member Swetnam told council the principal legal reference is chapter 35.61 of the Revised Code of Washington, which governs metropolitan park districts. She said subsection 5 of that chapter allows a city to limit taxing powers "in the resolution in cases where the Metropolitan Park District is being formed for specifically identified facilities," and that the city "must state what that maximum levy rate is" if it elects a limited-purpose district.

Nut graf: The distinction matters because the pool commissioners want flexibility for future actions while many council members and members of the public want an explicit maximum levy rate on the ballot to reassure voters. Staff and the district's attorney were still reconciling the statutory reading as the council set a tight timeline to meet county ballot deadlines.

Pool commissioner Jeremy McNett told council, "This measure that we're trying to put forth has got nothing to do with a new facility. It's operation maintenance of the existing facility." The pool commission and supporters say their aim is to create stable, perpetual funding for operations and maintenance (O&M) so the facility and programs can be sustained without returning to voters every six years.

The draft ballot proposition under discussion included a preliminary maximum levy of 12 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation for 2027, based on conversations between the district and county staff. County counsel and the pool district's counsel differed on whether that maximum could remain if the district elected to be a broad-purpose district.

Several residents and stakeholders addressed council. David Hanson, treasurer for Friends of Fidalgo Pool & Fitness Center, said, "I think it's really important to agree for the city and the and the pool to agree on a maximum tax levy rate, because that will take care of or remove an uncertainty that a lot of voters didn't like." Opponents urged preserving voters' ability to approve future tax increases and expressed concern about extending taxing jurisdiction to nearby islands; Barbara Smart warned that cumulative tax increases would affect lower-income residents.

Councilmembers pressed for clarity on several points: whether a limited-purpose district could be drafted broadly enough to include existing on-site buildings (fitness center, senior center property), whether a limited cap could later be raised via a levy lift or bond, and how the district would handle potential future capital projects (which would require voter approval of a bond).

Swetnam said the county and pool district attorneys were continuing to reconcile the interpretation and that staff would return next week with updated language and a recommendation: "I don't think the pool district is asking for council, yes or no tonight," she said, but the timeline to place a proposition on the November ballot required resolution of the questions quickly.

Outcome and next steps: Council did not adopt the resolution or ballot language at the July 21 meeting. Members agreed to return C and D (the interlocal agreement and the resolution) to next week's meeting to allow attorneys for the city, county and district to resolve whether a limited-purpose formulation with an explicit levy cap is legally compatible with the district's goals. Skagit County planned to consider its parallel resolution on July 28. The deadline for county submittal to be on the November ballot was imminent.

Ending: Council set a follow-up schedule and asked staff to provide clearer draft language and legal analysis on limited versus broad-purpose district authority before final action.