Council hears feasibility study outlining options to enclose Peter Kirk Pool; price range spans dome to permanent structures

City staff and aquatics consultants presented the Peter Kirk Pool assessment and options to enclose the seasonal outdoor pool for year-round use. "Buildings are in pretty good condition as they are," Jeff Anderson, principal at Scamato Workshop (consultant), told council as he summarized the facility assessment, noting recommendations for accessibility and limited seismic work. The consultants identified short-term immediate needs (health, safety, accessibility) of about $2.0 million and long-term facility needs of about $2.2 million — a combined assessment total of roughly $4.3 million to bring the current facility up to standard regardless of enclosure choices. For a year-round enclosure, consultants presented three classes of solutions with planning-level cost ranges: an open-air, permanent structural enclosure with operable roof panels (estimated about $20 million to enclose both pools); a sprung-tension fabric structure (about $10 million); and an air-supported dome (a “bubble”) estimated at roughly $7 million for partial coverage (noting the dome is seasonally removed and provides different indoor environmental quality). Consultants also showed a recommended programmatic change: separating the existing wading pool and lap pool into independently conditioned systems (currently they operate as a single pool system). The suggested conversion of the wading pool to a more usable “activity pool” with an ADA ramp, grand steps and programmable shallow areas was estimated at about $3.0 million; separating mechanical systems could cost about $850,000. A bathhouse addition was estimated roughly $1.8–1.9 million. Operational impacts were discussed: year-round operation would increase annual operating costs (consultant estimate in presentation range: $1.3–1.5 million), but revenue also could increase (from about $300,000 historically to as much as $750,000–$800,000) with swim lessons, memberships and year-round programming. Council debate focused on priorities, costs and phasing. Councilmember Sweet said $20 million permanent options “are scary big numbers” and asked for proposals focused on short-term outcomes that can be funded without another citywide ballot measure. Councilmember Pascoe, Councilmember Black and others supported exploring long-term, robust solutions but emphasized careful prioritization and public input. Deputy Mayor Arnold suggested confirming a strategy for phasing: pursue lower-cost interim steps that preserve the option of later, larger investments and work on possible grant applications, including a King County aquatics grant staff said the city can apply for (the memo described a $5 million potential grant avenue). Staff and consultants will return with scenario cost comparisons, implementation timelines, grant possibilities and a clearer recommendation for what to pursue as a near-term investment vs. a long-term solution. Councilmembers suggested adding a deeper work-program review on this topic to set funding priorities and timelines.