Some Flounder Bay Marina slip owners had little to say about a dredging project — until they opened up their city of Anacortes stormwater bills two weeks ago.

“Send everyone a bill for one-hundred and fifty bucks and they get talking pretty fast,” said John Reed.

Reed was one of about 150 slip owners and neighbors who attended an open house meeting at Skyline Thursday to learn more about the Flounder Bay dredging project and its potential costs. He was there hoping to find a more equitable way to split up the cost.

“I have a sailboat. It has a 5-foot draft. I can go in and out fine, except at very low tides,” Reed said. “Why should a 30-foot slip cost the same as a 50-foot slip?”

Some slip owners at the meeting said they did not receive fliers in their bills or see notices in Skyline’s newsletter about the $144 stormwater charge. They were surprised at the bill, which covers a preliminary survey of Flounder Bay’s dredging needs and analysis of the likely price tag. The $100,000 cost was split evenly between the 691 slips that make up a newly created special interest district, and owners of multiple slips received multiple bills, said City Planning Director Ian Munce.

Many at the meeting were more concerned about the bigger bills yet to come. A second phase that includes obtaining permits, technical plans and everything needed to issue bid documents is budgeted at $500,000. Finally, the actual dredging may cost as much as $1.37 million. Split equally, this comes to about $2,700 per slip.

A number of Skyline residents who do not own slips or waterfront property were at Thursday’s meeting to make sure that the special interest district would not be expanded to include them. Munce said the special interest district is unlikely to be expanded to include the rest of Skyline as some slip owners have recommended.

“That idea seems to be terribly unpopular,” he said.

The mayor and City Council approved the first phase of the project with clear statements that the city will not foot the bill. In the original short plat for the marina, the city accepted title to the public channels, with the clear understanding that it did not assume the responsibility of dredging.

“That leaves those with slips who need the navigation channels” to pay for the project, Munce said.

Some slip owners hope to find a more equitable way to split the cost. A number of them were frustrated that there was no open question and answer period at the open house. Instead, they were invited to talk to city finance and public works staff one-on-one after hearing a presentation about the dredging project.

But the small groups provided a likely next step. Munce said slip owner John Adams approached him about sending a questionnaire to each owner.

“We’re talking about coming back and revisiting the issue,” Adams said.

He said a group of slip owners will recommend questions on such issues as what areas should be dredged, the scope of the work and how it should be paid for. The questionnaire can determine the level of support for going ahead with more expensive phases of the project.

Munce said it does seem prudent to ask the owners again, now that they have all been identified and informed of likely costs, but it is up to the elected officials to decide how to proceed.

“I’m going to recommend that approach to the mayor and council,” he said.


City Council members Erica Pickett and Bill Turner attended the Skyline meeting. Pickett later said a questionnaire sounds like a sensible idea and echoed what officials have already said.

“If they don’t want to pursue it, the city is not interested in the project,” she said.

The city is coordinating the dredging project at the request of a majority of slip owners, who petitioned for help last year. The city can secure low-interest, long-term financing and a guaranteed payment plan, which the slip owners would have trouble obtaining on their own.

Munce said he is confident that the petition was signed by a majority of slip owners. However, because the city opted to bill the owners through the stormwater utility rather than setting up a complicated limited improvement district, the city was not obligated to legally validate the signatures.

He said the majority of slip owners responded positively to their bills.

“Most paid up front. The people who requested it are paying the bills,” he said.

Adams said details have to be worked out about how the cost will be split. He is concerned that the process be transparent and that accurate information is offered.

Sport fisherman Jim Frederick said the city should pay a share because of silting caused by stormwater outfalls.

“The city has already dredged at one outfall,” he said.

Adams said the marina is an asset that should be supported by the whole community.

“It’s a gem. It’s a calling card for the city,” he said.

Adams and Frederick also discussed the idea of different rates for commercial users.

“They should pay a much larger part,” Frederick said. Munce said it is debatable whether one category of slip should be treated differently than another, although it is possible to set up different rates. Although some don’t need deep water access, the project will enhance their property values.

“All of those slips are owned privately. They are investments ...,” he said. “It’s worth a lot more if you have deep water access.”

Higher value may be what some slip owners are afraid of — Adams cites one 100-foot slip in Condo 18 that saw a tax increase from $1,097 to $2,738 in the last year.

Reed said he can’t afford dredging costs.

“I’m on a fixed income,” he said.

Munce said the next question owners are likely to raise is whether the owner of a 30-foot slip should pay the same rate as the owner of a 60-foot slip. He said the problem is that each change can erode the majority support needed to move forward.

“These questions are great, but if you unravel it too much you may not have a project. Too many details could kill the project,” he said.

Munce said the city has already done what it promised to do.

“The City Council has only committed to doing the first phase,” he said.

Work is unlikely to go ahead if the majority of slip owners don’t want it.

“The city doesn’t need to do the project. It is not a city project,” Munce said. “The owners came forward and asked the city to help them move forward.”