Anacortes council delays placing pool district measure on ballot amid tax and wording concerns

Anacortes — The City of Anacortes on July 14 heard a proposal from city staff and the Fidalgo Parks and Recreation District to place a joint proposition on the November 4 general election ballot to create a Fidalgo Metropolitan Recreation District, but councilors postponed action pending further legal and factual clarifications. City staff introduced two related items: an interlocal agreement to have the city place the district proposition on the ballot while the district would prepare and pay election costs, and a companion resolution requesting Skagit County to add “Joint Proposition 1” to the ballot creating a five-member Fidalgo Metropolitan Recreation District with boundaries coterminous with the Anacortes School District. Multiple members of the public told council they opposed re‑presenting the measure after voters narrowly rejected a similar proposition last year. Linda Martin, who lives in Anacortes, told council she was “very disappointed to see that once again is going to be on the ballot” and urged council to postpone or vote no. She also said the ballot text should make clear it is not an endorsement by the city and that the initial levy amount should be stated on the ballot; she told council the RCW language suggests the initial levy rate is an appropriate inclusion. Resident Suzanne Roner framed her remarks around taxation and affordability: “We are being subjected to excessive taxation,” she said, contending that a permanent levy without a stated expiration could worsen housing-affordability pressures. Resident Steve Anderson said he would vote no to anything that raised his property taxes and questioned paying both a property levy and user fees. Eric Dolan, executive director for the Fidalgo Parks and Recreation District, told council the commissioners asked to revisit the measure because many voters, in the district’s view, had been confused about what they were voting on. Dolan said the proposal is “not a new tax. It’s just replacing an old tax,” adding that the district’s intent is not to immediately move to the statutory maximum levy and that expanding the boundary to match the school district could spread costs across more taxpayers. Councilmembers and staff identified several outstanding questions. City staff and the council’s legal adviser agreed to check whether state law requires the ballot proposition to state a maximum levy rate and whether the city may include a specific initial levy amount or other explanatory language in the ballot resolution. Councilmember Walters noted a line in state law (referenced in the meeting as RCW 35 61 0 2 0) that appears to permit a local government to limit a district’s maximum levy in the ballot language. Council discussion also touched on the mechanics and consequences if the larger metropolitan district were created and the existing pool district dissolved and its assets transferred. Walters and other councilmembers asked whether a future voter-initiated dissolution would be feasible; staff said dissolving a taxing district is legally possible but politically and practically difficult. At the close of discussion the council did not adopt the interlocal agreement or resolution. Instead staff were asked to obtain analyses from the county and city attorney’s offices and to ask the pool district to clarify the intended initial levy rate and explanatory statement; the target deadline given by staff is the county’s August 5 submittal cutoff for ballot measures. The council therefore took no formal action on the proposition at the July 14 meeting. The item will return to council after staff and district follow-up; the county’s legal and ballot-timing requirements were cited as the reason the council needs final language quickly if it chooses to act.