If Kirkland residents want a metropolitan park district (MPD) to fund the Aquatic and Recreation Community Center, they will have the chance to approve it this November.

The Kirkland City Council approved an ordinance placing a proposed MPD on the November ballot during its July 21 meeting.

The MPD would be used as a funding mechanism for the ARC. The city recently completed a site analysis of Christ Church, one of the possible sites for the ARC, with an estimated construction cost of $56.7 million. This price does not include the purchase of the land.

Under the proposed ordinance, the MPD’s boundaries would be the city limits, and the council would act as the governing body.

An MPD 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 initial levy rate for the ARC is estimated to be $.25 per $1,000 AV.

The council also approved an ordinance that authorizes the city manager to enter into an interlocal agreement with the MPD if it is approved by the voters. The interlocal agreement would allow the city to run the district directly. The board would approve the district’s six-year budget, which would be updated annually and include a public hearing prior to adoption of the annual budget.

From the perspective of many in the city, the MPD is the most practical way of funding the ARC after searching for both locations to place it, as well as ways of paying for the associated costs. With many of the costs still uncertain, the MPD would enable the city to raise as much as needed to cover the final bill, while a bond measure would raise a specific amount and require more certainty as to the final bill.

Councilmember Dave Asher said during the meeting that the MPD would also provide a sustainable means of maintaining the ARC in the long-term, calling it “probably one of the smartest moves we’ve made.”

“If you look at aquatic facilities and other types of facilities that have been in place for a long period of time, a number of them are going away, because they didn’t have an enduring, sustainable funding mechanism.”

Councilmember Shelley Kloba said that the MPD would prevent them from being in the same situation they are in at the moment, trying to find ways of paying for a new community center.

“An MPD allows you to maintain it, not just throughout the life, but replace it,” she said. “I hope our community will look that far down the road.”

Prior to approving the ordinance, the council added language that states the board will not increase the levy rate in any one year for purposes other than financing the ARC by more than five cents per $1,000 AV without first placing an advisory ballot measure to the vote. They also added language that said park district revenues will not be used to supplant funds or service levels previously funded by the city’s general fund or special levy fund.

Councilemembers Toby Nixon and Asher, who had recommended doing so at past council meetings, said the added language would improve public accountability and offset possible concerns about how the district funds may be used in the future.

“We don’t want people to think that a future council might use it for some other project without going to the voters for at least an advisory,” Nixon said.

“This provides assurance that we aren’t going to take excursions away from the ARC,” Asher said. “We’re not going to use this (the MPD) as a bottomless pit.”

At the same time, the city is making progress as it continues to examine Christ Church in Totem Lake as a possible ARC site, with a completed site analysis concluding the 12-acre property would be able to provide for both the ARC as well as future expansions. The site is across the street from the city of Kirkland Public Safety Building. According to Parks Directory Jennifer Schroeder, the property could accommodate both a 32-meter and 50-meter pool, along with a park maintenance center. The analysis involved a hypothetical conceptual design, but an actual design has not been created yet.

Schroeder stated that if the city were to purchase the land, it would have to protect the hillside and retain 25 percent of the healthy trees.

As part of the construction costs, the city would still have to pay $3.8 million in sales tax because unlike public works projects, recreation development projects are not tax exempt.

Some of the benefits of the church property would be allowing for the preservation of open space, enough room for patios and a deck, and accessibility due to its proximity to the Cross Kirkland Corridor. It would also allow the North Kirkland Community Center (NKCC) to remain open while the ARC is being constructed. The NKCC is also under consideration as a possible site, with two separate options costing $52.8 million and $60.6 million. Unlike the church property, however, the NKCC is city-owned and would not require them to purchase the land, but at four acres is much smaller and wouldn’t allow for any expansion. Schroeder stated that if the ARC were built on the church property, recreational programs held currently at the NKCC would move into ARC once it was completed, and the NKCC would be closed or repurposed.

“We live in a city that is known for its parks,” said Kirkland Mayor Amy Walen. “That’s what makes us remarkable. We’re one of the top cities to live in the United States because of our quality of life… Our quality of life is our economic development strategy.”

Before voting on the MPD ordinance, Nixon remarked that while he would prefer to spend that amount of money elsewhere first, such as upgrading the fire stations, the ballot measure allows residents to decide if the costs for building ARC are worth it enough to pay an additional tax.

“I think it’s important to note that we’re not putting an essential public facility up for a vote that too often happens in too many circumstances,” he said. “This is the kind of thing that these kinds of public votes were intended for, an actual real choice to be made. It’s not guns held to your head being dared to vote no. I think it’s something that the public can consider whether they want to commit their family resources to this project versus some other types of projects they may choose to fund.”

A similar sentiment was expressed by Councilmber Doreen Marchione.

“If we had $50 million, and we wanted to say what are our biggest priorities, this might not be for the reasons you (Nixon) stated,” she said. “But we did have the community come to us and say this is what we want, this is what we need. And so we’re saying to them we’ll put this on the ballot and you can choose and show us you’re willing to tax yourself to build this great facility.”