At a neighborhood meeting last week, I came across something completely out of character for the Kirkland I know. When the discussion turned to the aquatic center ballot measure, the opponents used fear of the unknown as their primary argument. If I were to subscribe to all those fears, I wouldn’t vote in favor, either. However, I would have to suspend judgement on what I know to be true.

There are new approaches in the proposal but Kirkland generally is more thoughtful than the opponents assume. The entire concept of presenting a proposal to build an aquatic center is in response to community requests and survey results. After nearly a decade of study, scores of public meetings and changes to account for feedbac, the ballot measure provides a workable means to meet those goals. The multiple functions in the proposed aquatic center are lessons learned from other communities across the country. With a wide variety of activities, modest user fees – rather than taxes – support ongoing operations.

Our lakeside community certainly deserves a place where children can learn to swim and families can find a variety of recreation opportunities. Swim lesson reservations currently fill within minutes of opening and the existing pool at Juanita High School has no long-term prospects.

The approach to create a park district, rather than a bond, is generally in response to the numerous pools that the county created decades ago that are either closing or converting to park districts. Kirkland’s situation is that many millions of dollars would have to be spent just to arrange to send a bond measure to a vote – secure the property, design the facility, and prepare the financing. Those costs would have to be paid before you would get a say as to whether you want to fund the aquatic center. So, the park district approach provides a way for you to say whether you want the aquatic center before huge amounts of our money are spent.

As to the fear that our money would just be wasted, our city has some well-earned credibility and fiscal discipline when it comes to being prudent with our money and being accountable. It is no accident that Kirkland has had a Triple-A credit rating that stood through even the hard times. It is not by accident that the State Auditor’s Office awarded Kirkland one of three stewardship awards for the city’s outstanding fiscal and accountability systems. It is through hard work and basic fiscal restraint that the Cost of Government, when comparing Kirkland’s tax and fee revenue with the community’s income, is far below national averages (5-6 percent). In fact, one of our neighboring cities touts its Cost of Government as being prudent at 5.5 percent, while Kirkland’s is below 3.5 percent. So, the facts say that on the whole, we are getting pretty good value for what we are paying.

Now, as far as the fears of irresponsible bureaucrats go, I was surprised when such national partisan rhetoric was being thrown out and related to my home. We are actually talking about local people dealing with local parks.

In arriving at the proposal to fund the aquatic center, the Kirkland City Council took a conservative approach to put limitations and conditions on the level and uses of the taxes that would be collected. The funds will be focused on the aquatic center and any future thoughts to use the park district to fund major things would require a vote. The vote is an advisory vote, but if you have paid attention to our City Councils over the past decades, you’ll know they are pretty responsive to the community. A Citizen’s Oversight Board will oversee and report annually on the aquatic center, but the City Council would have final approval authority and answer annual audits from the state.

As you begin to hear of the fears describing what “might be” remember that the sky is not falling and the decision makers are not from Mars. Appeals such as that are meant to play on your emotions and prejudices rather than on your good judgement. Please think carefully about whether Kirkland should have a public aquatic and recreation center and if the price is worth it to you.

I personally believe that Kirkland deserves an aquatic center like the one currently proposed; if not for us, certainly for our kids.

Dave Asher is a member of the Kirkland City Council, but he is presenting his personal views.