Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anacortes council presses pause on pool district ballot language as legal questions remain
Summary
Council members and the Fidalgo Pool commissioners discussed whether a proposed Metropolitan Park District for Fidalgo Pool should be limited-purpose (allowing a capped levy) or broad-purpose (no statutory cap in ballot language); staff will return with clarified legal advice before placing language on the ballot.
City councilors, pool commissioners and public speakers spent more than an hour on July 21 discussing draft ballot language for a proposed Fidalgo Metropolitan Park District that would provide permanent property tax funding for operations and maintenance of the Fidalgo Pool and Fitness Center.
City staff told council the choice is consequential: a limited-purpose metropolitan park district formed for a specifically identified facility allows the city to include a maximum levy rate in the ballot proposition; a broad-purpose district, which the pool’s attorneys prefer, would not allow the city to insert a maximum levy rate into ballot language under its current legal reading. “There’s a choose-your-own-adventure here that we have to get right,” City Attorney Darcy Swetnam told the council, noting chapter 35.61 of the Revised Code of Washington governs metropolitan park districts.
Pool commissioners and supporters said the measure is intended primarily to guarantee ongoing operations and maintenance funding so the pool does not need frequent renewal levies. Commissioners said the proposal is not a ballot authorization for a new pool; any future capital bond for a new facility would require separate voter approval. “This measure…has nothing to do with a new facility. It’s operations and maintenance of the existing facility,” Commissioner Jeremy McNett said.
Several council members asked for two clarifications: whether a district that begins as limited-purpose could later add facilities without a new vote, and whether the district could seek a levy lid lift beyond an initial cap. City and county attorneys and the district’s counsel are reviewing both questions; Councilmember Walters said the city should get a definitive legal read before finalizing ballot language.
Public commenters emphasized voter control and transparency; several urged a maximum levy rate be stated in the proposition so voters know the upper bound. Others — including pool supporters — asked that ballot text also make clear the district’s link to the existing pool. Staff said they expect to return to council next week with refined resolution language and legal answers to the outstanding questions to meet county ballot deadlines.
Ending: Council postponed final placement of language and instructed staff to resolve the legal questions about limited versus broad purpose district language and whether the city may include a maximum levy rate in the ballot proposition.
