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.