With preparations underway for a possible ballot measure for a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) to fund the Aquatic and Recreational Community (ARC) Center, the city of Kirkland is still on the hunt for an actual site.

During its June 2 meeting, the City Council was presented with a draft ordinance for the ballot measure as well as the interlocal agreement allowing the council to act ex officio as the district board. They also discussed whether the ballot should include specific language about the taxing rate.  If approved by the council and then voters in the Nov. 3 election, the MPD would act as a separate municipality, though under the current draft, the MPD would exist only within Kirkland’s city boundaries. According to Parks Director Jenny Schroeder, under the current draft of the interlocal agreement the city would own any land and facilities possessed by the MPD.

During their April 21 meeting, the council approved a resolution directing staff to look into an MPD as a funding mechanism for the ARC. While Kirkland has looked into possibly partnering with other cities on the Eastside 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 April 21 resolution also declared their preference for a privately-owned site located somewhere in the Totem Lake neighborhood, based on community feedback that opposed the use of city-owned property. Christ’s Church representatives, located at 11725 NE 118th St across from the Kirkland Justice Center, have expressed interest in possibly selling the property, though no formal offer has been made yet.

Last year, the city looked into siting the ARC at Juanita Beach Park, but Juanita residents and the neighborhood association protested, and the council’s April 21 resolution dropped it from consideration as an ARC site.

Councilmember Doreen Marchione emphasized the importance of finding strong candidates for the ARC’s site before the MPD is voted on due to these prior community concerns over its location.

“I think we’re gonna have a difficult time if we try to go on the ballot without having a property identified,” she said. “I think it’s fine to say we want to do this and this is what we want to build, but I think we’re going too far when we say ‘trust us we know where it’s going to be,’ because it’s been controversial on the siting.”

Mayor Amy Walen, however, expressed confidence later in the meeting that Kirkland voters would support the MPD even if a specific site isn’t located by November.

“It would be preferable to have identified a list of potential sites, but I also think our voters are very educated,” she said. “I have faith that they will be supportive of this.”

City Manager Kurt Triplett has previously said the lack of a site has put the city in an uncertain position in which the full cost of the project is not known. This would make it difficult to fund through a bond measure, as bonds raise a specific amount of money. An MPD, on the other hand, is a junior taxing district that, instead of a fixed amount raised, sets a fixed tax rate that all property owners pay per $1,000 in assessed valuation (AV), with a maximum rate of 75 cents per $1,000 AV.  The council has stated, however, it does not intend to use the full taxing authority, though when they discussed whether to include a specific tax rate in the ballot measure language, Councilmember Toby Nixon said it would create unnecessary complexity and the MPD vote should be limited to whether or not to fund the ARC. To provide accountability for the tax rate, he suggested putting language into the interlocal agreement that the council would always go to the public before increasing it.

“Essentially, when they take this vote they will be saying yes or no on the ARC,” he said. “But if something came up in the future that was aquatics park or recreation that we wanted to add on, what we’re committing to is we’re going to ask the public again, with an advisory vote, as to whether we should do that before we take the vote as the district board to increase the property tax rate. I think that’s a more effective way of addressing the ‘blank check’ concern.”

The desire to make the MPD vote about the ARC was reflected in the name preferences councilmembers had for the district itself, though on the ballot it will specifically state its concerns forming an MPD. Some of the councilmembers said they wish to keep the name as simple as possible by either not including the word “metropolitan” or having it emphasize the ARC itself.

The council also discussed any possible impact on the 2012 Parks Levy, which raises $2.35 million annually for the maintenance of city-owned parks. They were opposed to revoking it and funding maintenance through the MPD.

“We spent a lot of time working with the voters in 2012 for permanent protected funding to maintain our parks,” Councilmember Jay Arnold said. “And this would put that at risk… and I don’t think it’s appropriate.”

Councilmember Shelly Kloba said “I feel like if we don’t roll them in, it really protects them a little bit better… They were very specific about maintenance operations and acquisition of park land, and I think being true to that vision is important. And then, depending on what we name this (the MPD), it also has a fairly narrow and specific purpose and I think that will be easier to conceptualize for people.”

The council will take a final vote on the two ordinances by July 21. If the ordinances are approved, the council will appoint committee members to write pro and con statements for the ballot.