Council delays action on Fidalgo pool district ballot measure amid questions over levy language and scope

The Anacortes City Council on July 14 discussed but did not approve an interlocal agreement and ballot resolution that would ask Skagit County voters to create a Fidalgo Metropolitan Recreation District covering the Anacortes School District.

The city staff item would have the city file a joint proposition with Skagit County asking voters on the Nov. 4 general election ballot whether to form a recreation (metropolitan) district governed by a five-member elected board; the district’s taxing boundary would match the Anacortes School District. Under the proposal the parks district would prepare and pay election costs and the city would adopt the resolution placing the measure on the ballot.

Why it matters: Supporters say the change would broaden the funding base and secure long-term support for Fidalgo Pool and Fitness Center programs. Opponents and several speakers cautioned that the ballot language does not state an initial levy amount and could enable a taxing authority to set rates up to statutory limits unless the ballot or accompanying explanatory statement is clarified.

Details and public response: City staff said the measure is similar to a proposition that failed narrowly in 2024 and that the Fidalgo Parks and Recreation District asked to place it before voters again. Eric Dolan, executive director of the Fidalgo Parks and Recreation District, told the council the proposal is intended to stabilize funding and expand the number of taxpayers in the district. "It's not a new tax. It's just replacing an old tax," Dolan said.

Several residents urged the council to postpone or vote against placing the same language on the ballot. Linda Martin told the council she was "very disappointed to see that once again is going to be on the ballot" and said voters had rejected a similar measure last year. Martin and others said the ballot text should disclose an initial or maximum levy rate so voters can make an informed decision; a member of the public pointed to the RCW statute that permits a maximum levy to be specified.

Attorney/staff and council discussion: City staff said the county's attorneys previously reviewed the resolution and required certain language, such as calling it a "joint proposition." Councilmembers asked whether the ballot resolution must list a maximum levy rate; staff said they will consult the city attorney and county counsel and can ask the pool district whether it will propose an initial rate in the explanatory statement. Councilmember Fantini and others expressed that voters expect clarity about the rate the first time the measure appears on a ballot.

Timing and council direction: Councilmembers agreed to delay action and asked staff and the pool district to provide clarifications before the city adopts a resolution. Staff indicated a county deadline of Aug. 5 to place material on the ballot and that the county typically needs to see measures by an earlier date for the county’s July 28 meeting. The council directed the city attorney and pool district to return with possible ballot text revisions, an explanatory statement and legal analysis about whether the city may or should limit an initial levy in the ballot language.

Public comment highlights: Suzanne Roner urged the council to decline to proceed and said unnamed statewide tax increases had already raised residents’ tax burdens. Steve Anderson said, "Anything that's gonna raise my property taxes, I'm gonna say no." Malcolm McCutcheon asked whether such a taxing district could create a permanent taxing authority and suggested term limits or periodic voter renewal.

Outcome: No formal resolution was adopted; councilmembers requested legal review and a revised packet to consider at a subsequent meeting so the city can meet county ballot deadlines if desired.