Kirkland voters rejected Proposition No. 1, which would have a metropolitan park district (MPD) to fund the Aquatic and Recreation Center (ARC), with nearly 65 percent voting “no.”

The proposed MPD, which garnered 5,237 votes compared to the 9,422 opposing it, was pitched to the community by the city as a flexible and viable way for funding the ARC, as many of the costs are still unknown.

Rick Whitney, who helped spearhead the opposition campaign, said that while he is elated that voters down turned the taxing district, he said he is sad that it hasn’t brought them closer to building an aquatic center.

“It was a validation, and yet I feel bad because I know the guys on the other side, they have good intentions,” he said. “They thought their cause was a worthy one, and I do feel bad for them, but we’ll work together and come up with a way to fund a good aquatic center. This isn’t the end of the aquatic center. This is just the end of an ill-conceived funding mechanism.”

Rob Martin, who helped spearhead the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign, said he was obviously disappointed but hopes they are able to find another way to get an aquatic center funded.

“We still believe strongly in the need for these facilities, but at this point that’s pretty much all there is to say,” he said. “What the election taught is there are some things that clearly the citizens of Kirkland are not in favor of. That’s a lesson learned and we should be wise to listen to that and figure out what might be possible.”

Many councilmembers, including Mayor Amy Walen, expressed this disappointment in the proposition’s failure, as well.

“The community brought us the idea of an aquatic center for Kirkland, and all the public feedback we got was that they were supportive. When we called the question, they said no. But our work plan item was to give the public the chance to vote on an aquatic and recreation center. And we did that. The campaign worked really hard. I feel badly for them, because they worked really hard and you know just deeply held belief that this was the right thing for our city.”

“We did the best job we could putting together a package that would work for an aquatic center,” Councilmember Dave Asher said. “The community rejected it. I’m sorry that that happened but now we’re moving on.”

Much of the criticism aimed at the proposed MPD by detractors was also the same aspects touted by proponents, chief of which was the funding flexibility that would have allowed the district to set an appropriate tax rate based on the total costs of the ARC. However, critics said the lack of specificity would create a “blank check” for the City Council, which would serve as the MPD governing body under a planned interlocal agreement. Although the MPD would have created a citizen advisory board and required they allow an advisory vote for major expenditures, critics nevertheless pointed out that the advisory vote would not have been legally binding and the MPD could only be dissolved by the board itself.

Walen said that the MPD’s flexibility was the only way for them to appropriate the funds to build the kind of center the public demanded of them.

“I was just sad that people were questioning the motives of the councilmembers who worked really hard and put a lot of thought into it,” she said. “That’s not Kirkland.”

The results have the city back at the drawing board for possible ways moving forward to fund the ARC, though some city officials say other priorities will have to take precedence for the time being.

“I think we’ve always been very responsive to the community,” Walen said. “I haven’t had a chance to talk to my colleagues yet about the results, so it’ll just be a conversation for the coming months.”

Toby Nixon, who ran unopposed in this year’s election, said for now he thinks the city should focus on getting a bond measure passed as part of the city’s renewed efforts to improve fire and EMS services in the northern neighborhoods. If they do attempt to address the ARC again, he said, one of the biggest challenges for them will be determining the precise reason why the MPD was rejected.

“It’s really hard to tell from the vote whether people were voting against the ARC as a concept,” he said, “because the point that people made that it would used by a relatively small amount of people is a valid point. And so some people would say ‘I’m never going to use it so I don’t want to pay for it regardless of the funding mechanism.’ Some people said they would support the aquatics center, but they didn’t like the funding mechanism because it had the potential to raise a lot more tax money than what would be necessary for the ARC itself.”

Because of this, he said, it’s hard to know what motivated people to vote as they did.

“And that amount of uncertainty makes it hard to know what to do next,” he said.

City Manager Kurt Triplett said that the biggest disappointment for the city was how the focus was on the MPD as a taxing district rather than the benefits of the facility.

“That’s unfortunate,” he said, “because there’s some real need that won’t be met in the short term as a result of this.”