The city of Kirkland is currently examining a church property in the Totem Lake neighborhood as a potential future location for the Aquatic, Recreation and Community (ARC) Center.

The City Council approved $50,000 in funding at their June 16 meeting for a site analysis of the Christ’s Church property located at 11725 NE 118th St, across the Kirkland Justice Center. According to Parks Director Jennifer Schroeder, the site analysis will examine the utility services on the 12-acre property, as well as assess the foundation system, all of which impact the costs of construction. The site analysis would also allow them to determine what amenities could be included in the ARC.

City Manager Kurt Triplett said that although there has been no formal offer or price given by the church congregation, so far the discussions between the city and church representatives have been positive. If they were to purchase the property, Triplett said they estimate it would cost between $15-20 million. According to the King County Tax Accessor, the property is valued at approximately $8.8 million.

“That’s a big chunk,” he said. “I think that’s what the council is working through. They really want to be responsible with the public’s money and weigh the tradeoff between cost and benefit.”

In the meantime, the site analysis will help them decide whether the property will be ideal for the ARC.

“It looks extremely promising,” he said. “We just have to spend a little more money to see what would the layout of the property be…basically everything we know it should be a great site, but we need to make sure there’s nothing missing.”

Another aspect of the property they will look at are the three acres of forested hill on the property and whether it would be useable. It is the largest property the city has considered for the ARC. Juanita Beach Park, by comparison, was nine acres.

“The good news is the site is large enough that if you initially encounter something you could go around it,” Triplett said. “But we want to make sure we’ve done the due diligence before we keep going.”

While the city looks at the property, Triplett said they are still considering other potential sites such as the North Kirkland Community Center. Although it is city-owned property – resident feedback indicated a preference for the ARC to be located on privately-owned land – it offers many benefits the church property would not, such as saving costs by eliminating the need to purchase property. At the same time, however, the city would probably have to purchase abutting homes nearby, as well as deal with higher traffic volume compared to the church property, according to Triplett.

“It was a really tight size from the first time around,” he said. “I think that’s something we’d need to look at it. Do we need to build a bigger space? We don’t know that but it certainly does look it…there’s definitely two very different choices. It just depends on what we hear from the public.”

Many of the councilmembers have also stressed the importance of having a list of likely sites for the ARC’s location by the time of the November election, when they are looking to have a ballot measure for the creation of a metropolitan park district (MPD). Ideally, Triplett said, the city would have an option or a right of first refusal for the property by then so voters would have a strong idea of how much they would be taxed under the MPD to pay for the total project.

One of the problems the city has dealt with as it has tried to move forward with plans for the ARC has been numerous uncertainties due to the lack of a specific location, according to Triplett. To fund the ARC and purchase a property, they need the funding to cover the costs, but until they know where exactly, it is difficult to estimate how much it will cost taxpayers, how big it will be, and where it will be located.

MPDs are junior taxing districts, and if approved by a majority of Kirkland voters, the district would act as a funding source to purchase the property and construct the ARC, though a district can also be used to fund other community centers within the city or in cities outside the district. The city has also looked into possibly partnering with other cities to share the costs for community facilities. Differences in planning stages, site location preferences and facility amenities have made such a partnership on the ARC unlikely, albeit cities like Bellevue have expressed interest in a possible future partnership.

The council will hold a public meeting on the proposed MPD and the interlocal agreement between the district and the city on July 7. The council is expected to vote on the matter by July 21.

If the ordinances are ultimately passed, the council will appoint committee members to write pro and con statements for the ballot.