[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6179467,"mediaKeyId","5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a","parentId",5128525,"title","Council weighs four Peter Kirk Pool enclosure options; staff recommends baseline repairs before decision","audioSeconds",3328,"startMs",7208000,"endMs",10536000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a&start=7208&end=10536","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a/thumbnail_7208000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6179467/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Council-weighs-four-Peter-Kirk-Pool-enclosure-options-staff-recommends-baseline-repairs-before-decision","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179467-973bc1774f38eb65cf8d5f50ae98bb74/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155437&Signature=QpFRrkpillSze8XsrEQ4ltQQigIZ9QXeL3r1U4UVhsNE3ljAA~kd-HaxBmTgnPpwEqTH0zlyK3QmBDgCNkg3jiqX9cuxWZ54a7~sNMelkZ-l9RRwE2s0ZT0UubdQvXsSyCPXEB35EfgYQtOQN4XCaCqy~u1-qw3S411UWAVhOe7qJQCsYLC1Dk4zCpl9JJU7wp3xD8lujREE41v2~qFeNwdk~VHoQGxOZrjaORlcuHewG3Pt4-kKAh5qCRlye3-8tAc58mZbQ~0PZ2dcpiFEmtYfr9vsCwV~Lk-FvQK0uFyEcCppSBfOCev7c2TUiK89CKvWtoPKuBC4YQPVHZRSUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kirkland City, WA","date","2025-07-02T05:59:43Z","article","Kirkland City staff returned to council on July 1 with two recommendations: first, a baseline scope of repairs and system separations that staff says must happen regardless of whether the council ultimately decides to enclose Peter Kirk Pool; second, four enclosure options with widely varying capital and operating costs.

Baseline work: Parks and Community Services staff told the council the pool’s mechanical systems should be separated so the lap pool and the small activity pool no longer operate as one shared body of water. Staff said that separation would enable different water temperatures and sanitation systems for lessons and lap swimming and would reduce single‑point shutdowns. The baseline package also includes replacing a failing boiler, fixing damaged pool decks, addressing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deficiencies, replacing drain covers required by federal pool‑safety rules, and creating a new pool entry and three all‑gender/family changing rooms. Staff estimated the baseline package — which staff recommended whether or not an enclosure is chosen — at about $7,000,000 (conceptual, inclusive of city soft costs).

Enclosure options presented (all include the baseline scope):
• Option 1 — Full glass/open‑air style enclosure over both pools plus a new larger activity pool (concept images); estimated all‑in construction cost approximately $32.5 million. Staff projected the option would add roughly 2,200 lesson classes and serve several thousand additional students, greatly expanding year‑round programming.
• Option 2 — Enclose only a new, larger activity pool with an open‑air style structure while keeping the lap pool outdoors; estimated cost about $17 million. Staff called this a smaller “phase 1” that would expand youth lessons and recreational programming with lower capital and annual operating cost than enclosing the lap pool.
• Option 3 — Enclose only the lap pool using an open‑air style enclosure and renovate the activity pool as‑is; estimated cost about $22 million. That option would increase lesson capacity for older children and lap swimmers but would be less suitable for the youngest toddlers unless further platforming/detail work was added.
• Option 4 — Full enclosure of both pools using a sprung (fabric/rigid‑panel) structure; estimated cost about $21 million. Staff noted community concern about the aesthetic of sprung structures though it is more economical than the full glass structure.

Operating costs and capacity: Staff presented 2027‑dollar estimates for annual operating expenses. The currently seasonal outdoor pool’s annual operating cost was shown as about $727,000. Full enclosed scenarios raised the city’s net annual operating need (stand‑alone assumption in 2027 dollars) to about $1.7 million in the largest enclosure option; staff emphasized operating costs would be added to the city general fund baseline and that some revenue assumptions (partnerships, expanded program fees) could offset a portion of the operating increase.

Council response and direction: Councilmembers asked for more detailed comparisons of how many lesson seats each option would actually deliver by age group (toddlers vs. grade‑school vs. older youth), a close look at operating revenue potential and scholarship impacts, and alternatives such as partnering with private swim facilities or franchise swim schools that already operate year‑round. Multiple councilmembers asked staff to pause major capital commitments until the council has more information: staff expects additional funding clarity in August and September (King County parks levy result, and other grant outcomes), and several councilmembers asked staff to return with a more detailed financial and operating plan in September or October. Several councilmembers said they favored the activity‑pool enclosure (Option 2) as the most cost‑effective way to expand lesson capacity and serve families, while others preferred the lap‑pool enclosure (Option 3) for greater lesson capacity for older children; no selection or binding measure was adopted.

Ending: Staff will provide more granular program‑by‑age estimates, refined operating projections, a review of partnership opportunities with private aquatics providers, and updated grant/levy funding availability for council consideration in the fall. Quotes used in this article are from the July 1 study session presenters and council members.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kirkland City Council Meeting July 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kirkland City staff presented baseline repairs and four enclosure options for Peter Kirk Pool — from a full glass palace to a singular activity‑pool enclosure — and council asked for more financial and operational analysis before committing public funds.","taxTitle","Kirkland, King County, Washington","taxId",2569,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179477,"Two teams pitch mixed‑use affordable housing for Houghton Village; council seeks more financial detail",4276,739000,5015000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a&start=739&end=5015","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a/thumbnail_739000.jpg","/articles/6179477/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Two-teams-pitch-mixeduse-affordable-housing-for-Houghton-Village-council-seeks-more-financial-detail","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179477-2ddd51c088f86f73da48406b35157257/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155437&Signature=k3MvvStDUo0IuF-m0LOW1WFGgB2bnn995VUb8EegSlqWxxYjDweASoP0ISq43NX-7pAkBX1cRPHwbC~cJlZtLHA-gM58WdfQ6Pggq9wgi3a4n07FCN6O3rQShSrs9G2vXRdJ1NLR27HsrrcwPeGMSy9SYHi0bzQwp7hHiNMUu111rJHk0c0uCev6VVbIquKP~8hFyjVU1UmdShoR7qFxdw7FapiYA1rvCUog0a~1LTCDdoYJ3gxvdqX6vj1A3~Y3uGYhYKU7ug3Ct0rEAeBymh5lBnotjBwhoPQ2xiv098Thn2VIK4xs1r2LRu6-mIgicT584EOv-tafHnrrST35XQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two development teams presented competing visions to the Kirkland City Council for the city‑owned Houghton Village site, offering 100% affordable and mixed rental/homeownership plans that would put housing and ground‑floor community space on the parcel the city bought in 2022.

The proposals, presented during the council’s July 1 study session, focused on delivering a high share of affordable housing while providing neighborhood‑serving commercial or nonprofit space. Developer Joey Lonsford of Inland Group described a mid‑rise model with about 140–175 units restricted to 60 percent of area median income (AMI) and a conceptual $90 million budget for a 175‑unit scheme. Yi Zhao of Imagine Housing outlined a lower‑rise option that deliberately does not maximize height and would include about 120 rental units plus roughly 20 affordable homeownership units with more than 18,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial/community space.

Both teams told council they plan to use Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and state bond programs as the primary equity sources, and both said additional public subsidies or land‑value concessions from the city would be required to reach deeper affordability. Lonsford’s illustrative pro forma assumed a 50 percent land discount and included placeholder commitments from local funders: $2.75 million from ARCH, $9 million from the Evergreen Impact Housing Fund and developer equity/deferred fees. Imagine Housing likewise listed LIHTC, state housing trust fund dollars, ARCH and philanthropic sources (including Amazon’s Home Equity Fund) in its conceptual stack and said its timeline would likely push major funding awards into the 2028–2029 cycle.

Council members pressed both teams on specifics the proposals left open. Council member Black asked whether Inland had experience leasing ground‑floor retail; Lonsford said Inland has placed coffee shops and services under multifamily buildings and would lean on local community engagement and commercial partners to lease space. Council members also asked about parking assumptions under recently adopted state law (SB 5184). Both teams said they modeled existing and recently enacted rules into underwriting but acknowledged on‑the‑ground parking demand for households would be higher than the minimums the city can legally require for small units. Council member Paschal asked about co‑location of market‑rate and affordable units; both teams said mixed towers raise regulatory and financing complexities and that, in practice, market‑rate and affordable units often end up in separate structures in the same project.

On affordability depth, council asked whether teams could deliver more units under 50 percent AMI. Inland said deals pencil best at 60 percent AMI without more subsidy; Imagine said it could consider some lower‑AMI units but warned lower rents reduce the project’s debt capacity and therefore require additional subsidy. Both teams said they would revisit income mixes if the city prioritized deeper affordability.

Councilmembers also asked about the city’s likely contribution. Deputy Mayor Arnold signaled the city would probably not meet the most aggressive subsidy assumptions in the proposals and asked staff to return with analysis of what the city could afford and the implications for unit mix and design. Multiple councilmembers also asked staff for: (1) a comparison of the existing commercial square footage on the Houghton site to the commercial space proposed in each submission; (2) clearer estimates of carrying costs and staff capacity should the city hold the property through design and entitlement; and (3) options for selling the parcel instead of pursuing a city‑led redevelopment if public subsidy or management capacity proves insufficient.

What happens next: staff said they will return to council with more detailed budget scenarios, land‑value assumptions (including an updated appraisal for five‑story build‑out), clearer parking and impact‑fee treatments, and options for advancing a development agreement or marketing the land for private sale.

Ending: For now, the council asked teams to continue working with staff while the city refines financial assumptions; no decision or binding agreement was made at the July 1 meeting. Quotes in this article come from presenters and council members who spoke during the July 1 study session.","Two development teams presented competing visions to the Kirkland City Council for the city‑owned Houghton Village site, offering 100% affordable and mixed rental/homeownership plans that would put housing and ground‑floor community space on the parcel the city bought in 2022.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179462,"Council approves downtown crosswalk package, asks staff to add 120 Fourth crossing after brief study",2428,15667000,18095000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a&start=15667&end=18095","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a/thumbnail_15667000.jpg","/articles/6179462/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Council-approves-downtown-crosswalk-package-asks-staff-to-add-120-Fourth-crossing-after-brief-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179462-51e4e6da0589c2c15bf36646b1675cfd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155437&Signature=BEtFIvttYtgnr9Y5tsgiWMzqQGA~u-y1SyjWKunGL-UagLFxjbCTW6EiADecFu~X5hkAdfzj07tpOu0LnXzd9AMBt1rE8VVoXY4T1JQKksBXX2KBjF2dfYGAaPL0RuK4s8A2iAa~ne-toXTA9gmtGPZi1jFDYRoU7BUnnNWeok0ScOm2d~DA~h2Yh9U3VGu3Mmbx5WCW4DeaMj7YW9kxgD~nvj62TWnfMhAytWXmQpVzVENIU06zUPl8-uHaIk~xA-n7gZecpTok3WaBGp2B7JjiXOMcXDLWdduldDoiD3VGIxFbb7PjY0TAzv-m5DBj-s-SFOfs5AkPbTsIrHpMuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Kirkland City Council considered a set of high‑priority pedestrian crossing improvements funded through the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and approved a downtown crosswalk package while deferring one contested crossing for more study.

Staff briefed council on the TBD program status and project pipeline and presented cost updates for remaining projects. Of particular interest were two items brought forward for decision: a sidewalks/crosswalk improvement on Northeast 120th Avenue (Kingsgate/Evergreen Hill area) and a five‑crosswalk package in the Moss Bay/Lakeview downtown area.

120 Fourth Avenue (Kingsgate): staff described a sidewalk extension along the west side of 120th North toward the city limit and proposed adding a marked crosswalk at Northeast 140th Street where riders and pedestrians cross to access a shopping center and bus stops. Because the corridor carries higher speeds and volumes, a center median island and curb ramps would be required, and staff said a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) would be an appropriate enhancement. The project’s baseline scope came in roughly $222,000 over the original budget because of higher‑than‑expected pavement, stormwater and restoration needs; adding a marked crosswalk would add about $30,000 and an RRFB would increase the shortfall to about $340,000. Council approved the option that adds a marked crosswalk and required pedestrian infrastructure while deferring the RRFB; the motion (moved by Councilor Sweet, seconded by Councilor Falcone) approved the mark‑only option and passed 7‑0.

Downtown Lakeview/Moss Bay crosswalks: staff proposed five high‑priority downtown crossings (Lake Street at Second Avenue, Lake Street at Fifth Avenue, Lake Washington Boulevard at NE 50th, the Kirkland Performance Center crossing on Kirkland Avenue and the north leg of State Street at Second Avenue S). Staff recommended RRFBs and other upgrades at several locations but found the combined scope exceeded the TBD budget. Council opted to adopt the downtown package but to remove the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 50th location from the funded package and ask staff to return with additional community input and feasibility alternatives for that location. The motion to adopt the four‑site downtown package without NE 50th passed 7‑0 (moved by Council member Black, seconded by Council member Falcone). Staff noted that removing the NE 50th item returned the TBD program to an expected positive contingency position.

Decisions and next steps: both votes were formal. Council directed staff to proceed with sidewalk and crosswalk construction where approved and to return with additional design and outreach on the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 50th location. The 120 Fourth sidewalk/crosswalk work will proceed with the marked crosswalk but without the RRFB pending the additional review and potential TBD contingency use.

Ending: Staff will proceed to procurement and construction for the approved TBD projects and will return to council with feasibility alternatives and public engagement recommendations for the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 50th crossing. The July 1 votes were 7–0 in favor of both adopted options.","Council approved a four‑site downtown crosswalk package funded by the Transportation Benefit District but asked staff to research a feasibility question and return on the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 50th crossing; council approved an RRFB crosswalk on 120 Fourth with limitations.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179473,"Kirkland staff present Safety Action Plan and draft speed‑limit approach calling for context‑based limits",3150,3030000,6180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a&start=3030&end=6180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5128525-b26a684a96e6365d87f29a69b8e40a4a/thumbnail_3030000.jpg","/articles/6179473/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Kirkland-staff-present-Safety-Action-Plan-and-draft-speedlimit-approach-calling-for-contextbased-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179473-03ebc899f3ed24aec0acd83a2ea2b748/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155437&Signature=XNYynBxEGd8FZhWz-Av6xzmuGDNLtMdpPAs5LxrL77NAZNgjTbWOLycg3M1lle1X908vMAWnK~IKQ6tFt4NKvyShYHnP1chB-1zFvZetkq8RvToyG7hvRZMPUD9XwwrY-VBj7NwocKViWC8jpatA1jbDmdsE5V-DmI-tMEnRW0NQ5zvHMp9IBNxIRXa0KX6YYb0dv1k-l69oxQPLGp4qb8Rxaho3MGoOIPg0s9T8iHGDrGElJxpwaXstgOLPPjcXn2oKQjJlnGpm6KQwFa-8kwlb4VWmQ0miRu-nlFaJi6TJvdVsBwUKGRS-Jwt9pQOhaw319CFWaHLhJKavSjfnqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council received an update on the Kirkland Safety Action Plan and a recommended method for setting speed limits on arterials and collectors during the July 1 study session.

Consultant DKS Associates and city transportation staff said the plan is informed by a citywide crash analysis, near‑miss video observations at selected intersections, and public engagement that produced more than 1,000 online comments. The analysis shows a roughly 40 percent drop in total reported crashes over time, but an outsized share of fatal and serious injury collisions involve vulnerable road users: consultants reported pedestrians and bicyclists made up about 6 percent of total reported collisions yet accounted for about 46 percent of fatal or serious injury collisions. The city’s evening commute window (3 p.m.–6 p.m.) was identified as the highest‑occurrence period for crashes (about one‑third of collisions).

DKS described a three‑part approach: (1) analyze crash history and near‑miss recordings (video footage focused on selected intersections to capture “close call” maneuvers), (2) compile a toolbox of engineering countermeasures tied to collision types and evidence‑based crash‑reduction factors, and (3) implement an action plan that prioritizes low‑cost near‑term measures alongside longer‑term infrastructure work. Staff said they had already identified roughly 10 corridor segments and 10 intersections for targeted follow‑up based on collision rate calculations and field knowledge.

On speed policy, staff recommended an expert‑based method that sets speed limits for arterials and collectors by assessing contextual factors — land use, signal density, access density, pedestrian activity and a bicycle level‑of‑stress measure — rather than simply setting limits by observed operating speeds. Under the draft approach, local roads would retain a 25 mph default. Staff said their data collection included operating speeds at roughly 76 locations and that proposed rules would prioritize vulnerable road users and sensitive land uses. The draft plan also includes a countermeasure toolbox with estimated crash reduction rates drawn from the FHWA/CMF clearinghouse and rough cost brackets for near‑term, medium and long‑term installations.

Council feedback and next steps: Councilmembers asked for further detail on several elements, including whether the plan addresses personal electric vehicles (e‑bikes and similar devices), the potential role of automated enforcement cameras, and the comparative safety and cost tradeoffs between roundabouts and signalized intersections. Staff said they will deliver a final plan to the Transportation Commission, then return to council with a recommended speed‑setting ordinance and an implementation schedule; no policy change was adopted at the July 1 meeting.

Ending: The draft plan will return for review after the Transportation Commission and additional staff refinements; at that time council will decide whether to adopt the speed‑setting policy and the plan’s prioritized countermeasure list.","City transportation staff and consultants presented a draft Kirkland Safety Action Plan using crash analysis, near‑miss video study and community input to recommend targeted countermeasures and a new expert‑based speed‑setting policy for arterials and collectors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council weighs four Peter Kirk Pool enclosure options; staff recommends baseline repairs before decision

Two teams pitch mixed‑use affordable housing for Houghton Village; council seeks more financial detail

Council approves downtown crosswalk package, asks staff to add 120 Fourth crossing after brief study

Kirkland staff present Safety Action Plan and draft speed‑limit approach calling for context‑based limits