Council reviews multiple recreation options: outdoor pool, indoor pool, indoor turf and full recreation complex

Kennewick City Council members discussed a range of recreation facility options at their Feb. 25 workshop, from a near-term outdoor pool replacement to a long-term full recreation complex with aquatic, gymnasium and community spaces.

Staff presented options developed in the recent recreational facility study and offered recommended sequencing: consider an outdoor pool complex replacement in the next one to two years, then explore an indoor turf field house and, in the longer term, a full recreation facility.

Why it matters: recreation projects are large capital investments with ongoing operating costs. Council members framed them both as quality-of-life investments and as projects that might require voter approval for new revenue mechanisms such as a metropolitan park district.

Options and costs presented

- Outdoor pool: estimated full buildout about $12,000,000; a cost without an eight-lane competition pool was approximately $7.7 million; a smaller four-lane instructional pool option was estimated around $2,000,000.

- Indoor pool: estimated cost about $21,900,000; staff provided operating-cost and revenue estimates (indoor maintenance/operations ~$613,000 and operating revenue ~$289,000).

- Indoor turf facility (field house): estimated cost about $23,700,000 for roughly 55,000 square feet; staff said this facility could attract regional events and, per the study, might operate without subsidy.

- Kennewick Activity Center (KAC) upgrades: renovation to expand gym and add turf estimated at about $13,100,000.

- Full recreation complex: comprehensive facility with aquatic center, gymnasium, multipurpose spaces, childcare and senior space estimated at about $50,300,000. Staff outlined a financing example: a $50,000,000 facility would produce roughly $3.844 million in annual debt service, which in the example equated to a levy-rate impact of roughly $0.33 per $1,000 of assessed value for debt service plus about $0.05 per $1,000 for ongoing operations (a combined projection in the materials of about $0.38 per $1,000).

Council discussion

Council members expressed a range of views. Council member Anderson argued for prioritizing a recreation facility because of broad community use and equity considerations: "How many residents can use a recreation center? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands." Other members stressed the need to balance recreation investments against core infrastructure and safety projects and to seek public input or voter approval when new taxes or levies are involved.

Staff noted the possibility of partnerships (for example, with school districts for large competition pools) and suggested that formation of a metropolitan park district could be considered to fund construction and operations; staff also said any levy or park district would require public support and a tailored structure.

Next steps

Council did not take action at the workshop. Several members supported advancing public engagement to test appetite for bonding or a park district and directed staff to include recreation sequencing in future master-planning and capital-prioritization steps.