My name is Christy. I first moved to Kirkland in 1970. My first swimming lesson was at the Juanita Pool in 1973 and I am concerned. I think that as we become comfortable with some community benefits we forget how important they really are. The Juanita pool was built for a community much smaller than today’s Kirkland. It has been running over capacity for many years now. Managers there tell me that they turn away about 75 percent of requests for community pool space and that lessons fill immediately.

I have asked around and discovered that community members are gobbling up leftover lesson slots at private clubs and private backyard pools when or if they allow non-members lessons at higher rates. Sadly, others are simply giving up on swimming lessons for their kids. This is an atrocity for many reasons, public safety, health, exercise and water therapy to name a few. The community pools built in the 1960s and 70s have closed, one by one. At the same time the community has grown by three to four times. How can it be that we have allowed our community pool to slip by the wayside?

I am a very conservative spender. For me any project must meet two conditions: need and value. I believe the ARC [Aquatics, Recreation and Community center] meets both.

It is clear from the math that our existing community pool is way over capacity. Outdoor summer facilities, leftovers at private clubs and the like are falling far short of meeting existing need. When Juanita High School rebuilds, the pool will be demolished. How will this further impact what is already a terrible dilemma? How many of us learned about water safety in community swimming lessons? Learned CPR on a Rescue Annie modeled after a girl who drowned? How many of us have grandparents who need exercise such as water aerobics which will not harm their joints? How many of us might have cause to rehab an injury in a pool? And how many of us know a disabled person who needs access to a community pool with wheelchair access? I know my mother, confined to a wheelchair early on needs access to a community pool. Private clubs provide no or incomplete disabled access.

I have lived in Kirkland most of my life but for a short time moved to Federal Way. My community there – a much poorer community than Kirkland, in the height of enormous 1970s Boeing layoffs – still had a community pool. This was long before King County’s Aquatic Center was built, but even then the community knew the importance of a community pool.

Now, value. To bring the per capita pool space back to what it was in the 60s we would need several community pools in Kirkland. It’s just not a tiny town anymore. Instead of several facilities community members, business people and the Kirkland City Council – after participating in many public meetings over the past several years – have decided to design the most cost effective single facility possible. By creating a pool twice the size lanes and space can be manipulated to support four to five times the space per person of a shorter 25-yard pool. Something akin to purchasing a better quality product at a higher cost but which will last five or six times longer – Value. In addition the ARC facility would include many other components which are in high demand such as gym space and a community center suitable for wedding receptions and the like, something that currently does not exist in Kirkland. This ensures fantastic rental income. A larger pool is also in very high demand for rental space.

We are always saying when government built X, Y or Z why didn’t we plan ahead? Well… ARC has. Juanita pool has been operating in the black for six years now and the ARC is designed to maximize space and rental income maximizing efficiency.

Why the MPD [Metropolitan Park District]? Simple, other revenue means were explored and the MPD is the most cost effective. ARC is not asking for the state maximum. It is not asking for even half but scarcely a third. There are limits built in and projections show ARC is likely to cost even less, the savings to be shared with residents. So the ARC without doubt meets my criteria for value.

In closing, the community I moved to in 1970 was not one where swimming lessons were only available to the wealthy and where the elderly and disabled were essentially told to go jump in the lake for exercise and good health. I know our community has grown. I know that it has become quite affluent but I urge voters to consider the community impact. Kirkland is a wonderful community. We have public parks, bike trails, walking paths, soccer fields and baseball and softball fields. In fact we enjoy numerous venues. How might you feel if one by one those facilities disappeared? Swimming is a life skill. It provides so much to the community. I know it is a secondary concern for many but our High School swimming programs will disappear if we do not build a replacement for the Juanita pool. These hard working kids are sharing and currently working out as early as 5am through whatever crowed lane space is available in the afternoons and as late as 10 p.m. On a personal leve l I do not want to say that for the first time in nearly 50 years I live in a community without a public pool or a place where these things are only available for those who can afford. Keep Kirkland a place of community. Vote yes on Prop. 1.

Christy Kucinski, Kirkland