Troy council delays vote on downtown Prouty Plaza design after heated debate over proposed water feature

Troy City Council on July 21 agreed to hold Resolution R402025 — an amendment to the downtown streetscape professional services agreement to add Prouty Plaza design work — for a third reading, scheduling further consideration for Aug. 2.

Council members and dozens of residents debated whether a small water feature proposed for Prouty Plaza should be included in the downtown streetscape project. Supporters said the water element is a modest, catalytic addition; opponents said consultants have not provided enough cost, maintenance or water‑use information to justify proceeding now.

The disagreement cut across council. Council member Westfall opposed the water feature, saying the proposal "lacks transparency, community input, and financial responsibility." Westfall told colleagues the water element was introduced late in the design process and that consultants had not produced complete construction, water‑usage or long‑term maintenance estimates.

Council member Schilling, chair of the Streets & Sidewalks committee, described the overall downtown project history and said the plaza addition is part of a multi‑year design effort; he told colleagues the plaza is roughly 60% designed and that the overall Prouty Plaza portion of the project is "in the $1 million to $1.5 million range," with a preliminary, high‑level estimate for the proposed water feature near $100,000.

Several other council members said they were willing to authorize the additional design work now so the consultants could return with detailed, itemized costs before construction. One council member requested that R402025 be "held over to a third reading," and council granted that request; the item will return to council on Aug. 2 for further consideration.

Residents who spoke at the meeting expressed both support and opposition. Bradley Beringer of Crestwood Drive urged council to remove the water feature from the streetscape, calling it "a splash pad no matter what you call it." Madison Hickman said families in her neighborhood largely supported a small, accessible water feature but cautioned about safety and taxes. Other residents urged clearer cost and water‑use data before moving forward.

Why this matters: Prouty Plaza is included in a larger downtown streetscape and safety renovation that city staff and consultants have been planning for years. Council must weigh design costs now against the risk of spending on features that could increase construction and ongoing operating costs, and the council’s decision on Aug. 2 will determine whether design proceeds to a bidable package that could lock in construction estimates.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to hold Resolution R402025 to third reading (request granted). Outcome: held to Aug. 2 for third reading; no final vote on the amendment occurred.

- Personnel committee appointments (reappointments and one new appointment to the City Beautification Committee): motion to approve reappointments of Barbara Reddick, Barry Van Kirk, Mary Davis, Peggy Wilkie and Lisa Bricker and to appoint Kathy Widdon (terms expiring 06/30/2027). Motion made by Council member Snead; second by Council member Twist. Council member Witten stated he "will vote yes for everyone but my mother" and abstained on that appointment; the motion was approved.

What council said and asked

- Westfall (council member): "I cannot support the proposed water feature on Prouty Plaza because it lacks transparency, community input, and financial responsibility." She cited concerns about late introduction of the element, incomplete cost estimates, and projected annual operating costs presented in public comments.

- Schilling (Streets & Sidewalks committee chair): said the amendment would provide a "firmer estimate" as design proceeds and described the overall plaza portion of the project as roughly a $1 million‑$1.5 million component of the larger streetscape work; he characterized the water feature estimate presented by staff as a high‑level figure.

Public comment and the council process

Multiple residents said they had not seen detailed cost or water‑use analyses; others said informal outreach showed neighborhood support for a small water feature. Council members and staff repeatedly described the current item as approval for additional design work, not a final construction authorization. Several council members urged that detailed cost, water‑use and maintenance estimates be returned with the design before construction decisions are made.

Next steps

Resolution R402025 will return for a third reading on Aug. 2. Council members and staff indicated they expect the design phase to produce more detailed cost estimates, construction specifications and any necessary operational projections before any construction authorization.