During its Aug. 22 meeting, the Mountlake Terrace City Council reviewed options and heard public comments for renovating or replacing the aging yet beloved Recreation Pavilion.

Since its construction 56 years ago, the pavilion has become a community center for people of all ages. Over the years, the building has hosted a range of activities, including swimming classes, water safety, ballet and Wallyball. But years of use have finally caught up with the venerable building.

On Aug. 22, Recreation and Parks Director Jeff Betz presented the pavilion’s current state and the options for the Mountlake Terrace facility.

From state-of-the-art to eBay parts

Betz explained that in 2008, Mountlake Terrace assembled a Civic Facility Task Force to analyze what was needed to replace city facilities, including City Hall and the Recreation Pavilion. After a year of study, the task force recommended building a new structure next to the pavilion.

The task force determined in 2009 that constructing new building next to the existing pavilion would allow it to stay open. The addition would be designed after identifying the features to be offered. However, that approach only tackled the community’s need for space, not aging equipment.

City staff hired consulting firm McKinstry in 2024 to research replacement costs of existing equipment. The energy audit report stated that the expenses without renovation would rise from $2,380,990 in 2024 to over $4 million by 2033. Further, a lack of a cohesive capital plan could exacerbate costs.

“The longer you wait, the worse things get,” Betz said. “We can’t even find these parts on eBay anymore.”

Then, there is the issue of parts availability. Unlike many classic cars or motorcycles, there is little to no demand for antique public pool parts — used or new old stock (NOS). Even if the pool had the same federally mandated parts availability as a car, which is required for 10 years after the sale, the pool would be 46 years past that timeframe.

Three options: Renovate, replace or do nothing

Betz explained the three options available to the city.

Option 1, making no changes, offered no benefits but strengthened the need for action. The issues listed included the challenges of the aging infrastructure leading to closures and increased maintenance and operation costs.

Option 2, which still needs assessment, is to renovate the existing building. Betz said the current building is too small to meet the current needs. In 2023, the building had over 270,000 guests from all over the region inside its 33,000 square feet. 

Betz said the Civic Facility Task Force in 2008 assessed that “the facility is no longer able to adequately support present, let alone future, indoor recreation program needs.” Besides the facility’s age, other complications come from what it is made from and what makes the pavilion unique. The building is a concrete six-sided (sextagonal) rather than based on a series of squares or rectangles.

The Lynnwood Aquatic Center is an example of a renovation that could be done. However, Betz said the advantage of the Lynnwood structure is that it was not made of concrete like the Rec Pavilion, and contractors could tear the building down to the support studs and add 16,232 square feet of space.

Option 3 involves completely replacing the pavilion and still requires analysis. Although a new center would solve the problems of aging equipment and lack of expandability, it presents other problems: where to build and cost.

For an example of costs, Betz explained that the City of Shoreline found that if it built an aquatic center on city-owned land, a 35,000-square-foot building would cost almost $55 million.

Betz said remodeling or replacing the pavilion will require about five years of analysis and planning.

Funding: Taxes, bonds and grants

Betz explained that a $512,000 construction bond for the pavilion was passed in 1964, and the facility was constructed in 1968. Over time, locker rooms, offices, a hot tub and racquetball courts were added. As the pavilion has aged, staff maintained the facility the best they could with limited resources and sources for aging parts, and costs have continued to rise.

Betz presented eight possible funding solutions:

– A property tax levy: The city could ask voters to consider a  property tax levy  that exceeds the 1% allowed annually by state law.

– Sales tax: Voters could be asked to approve raising the city’s current 10.5% sales tax. Betz said there is an option to add a restricted tax for facility districts.

– Special districts: A metropolitan park district is a junior taxing district that requires voters’ approval and can levy up to 75 cents per $1,000. The boundaries can exceed one jurisdiction so that it can incorporate multiple cities. Further, it can be used to fund both capital and operations expenses. Public facilities districts consist of municipal corporations with independent taxing authority. The boundaries of those districts are those of the jurisdictions that created them and have several funding options and uses.

– Property tax-based bonds: The council could approve limited tax general obligation bonds using existing revenues, but the bonds require voter approval. Betz noted that the pavilion was initially built using this type of funding.

– 63-20 tax exempt bond: Also known as the “rent-to-own” model, this method would partner the city with a nonprofit group to build and finance the project, at up to 100% of the costs. Betz said that these are typically on a 30-year term.

– Grants: Betz said there are few grants for recreation centers or buildings. Snohomish County may provide a grant opportunity through a future parks levy. Energy conservation grants or state and federal appropriations could also be available. Further, if the site can serve as a shelter or emergency operations center, it could qualify for FEMA funds.

– Donations: Create a campaign for private donations from corporations, foundations and individuals.

– Partnerships: One way the city could receive funding is by partnering with a third-party operator. Other possibilities include partnerships with other cities or nonprofits or a joint project with an affordable housing developer.

However, both councilmembers and public commenters said during the Aug. 22 meeting that partnerships raised concerns about affordability. Collaborating with the YMCA, for example, may price residents out of their local center.

City or regional service and where to build

The Recreation Pavilion was started by a grassroots movement of residents who campaigned for a recreation center in the city, planning to build on newly acquired land purchased with local, state and federal funds, including portions of Terrace Creek Park. 

“It is an icon to our community, and it is well loved,” Betz said. “There aren’t many facilities like it, especially for a community our size.”

The center’s uniqueness draws people to Mountlake Terrace and is an economic driver for the city. However, the number of people outside Mountlake Terrace using the center begs the question of whether Mountlake Terrace should pay the entire bill, Betz said.

During public comments, Mountlake Terrace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commissioner William Paige Jr. suggested analyzing the origins of pool users to better determine whether the pavilion should remain a city facility or become regional.

As to a location, Betz said that the current land offers the advantage of already being owned by the city and draws people to the Town Center. Even though replacing the facility in a new location would allow guests continued access, it would also begin a whole new set of tasks, costs and considerations. One is land acquisition, which is frequently the top cost driver in public projects.

Public comments and discussion

During the meeting discussion, Councilmember Rick Ryan emphasized the need for affordability. He said that swimming and sports facilities were free when he was growing up and served as a communal hub for youth.

“Get a bond and get it built,” Ryan said.

Public commenter Steven Barnes pushed for a remodel, stating the initial quote for a new city hall was far higher than what was finally built for $11 million.

Paige’s suggestion of a user analysis was shared by Nancy McMurrer, a swim instructor at the Recreation Pavilion who said half of her students are from out of town. Further, she has been told that the center is more affordable than facilities like the YMCA.

Patricia Schaut said she has been using the pool at the pavilion for physical therapy after an injury she sustained at work. She said that she could not afford the YMCA, but she could afford the Recreation Pavilion. 

Staff will further analyze the Recreation Pavilion’s community needs, costs and construction capabilities, and report back to the council at a later date.

— By Rick Sinnett