Recreation committee backs $220,000 design contract for Troy Aquatic Park maintenance

The Troy Recreation and Parks Committee on June 30 recommended that city council authorize the Recreation Board to enter a professional services agreement with MSA Architects for design work on the Troy Aquatic Park maintenance project at a cost not to exceed $220,000.

Committee members and staff said the design work is limited to repairs and maintenance of the existing facility and is not intended to fund or authorize an expansion. Patrick Titterington, presenting the request, said, "This has nothing to do with any kind of expansion of the facility." The design contract would produce final plans, specifications and bid documents so the city can solicit construction bids.

Committee members said the work follows a facility assessment completed last fall and a line item already included in the 2026 budget. The budget document allocates $1,700,000 for “TAP, Troy Aquatic Park repair and renovation — no expansion,” a sum that officials said covers both design and construction; staff quoted a separate construction estimate of roughly $1.35 million to $1.56 million for the items identified in the assessment.

Recreation Director Ken Seiler told the committee the pool opened 21 years ago and the assessment found the facility in relatively good condition for its age but in need of a variety of repairs and systems work. Seiler outlined the principal items the design work would target: replacement or repair of the drop slide in the deep end; touch‑up and repainting of the other slides; replacement of rope barrier fencing; replacement of sections of concrete decking; replacement of a rotting wood structure over the main entry with a steel structure; removal and replacement of upper sections of pool walls and gutters; a full recoating of the visible pool surface; replacement of several pumps and chemical controllers; repairs in the main pump room including visible piping and filtration media; and development of bid specifications for contractors. Seiler cautioned that the city is not proposing work on underground piping as part of this contract because those areas are harder to access and would require separate investigation.

Staff said the city intends to submit the architect and engineer drawings to Ohio regulators as required and to go out to bid late in the year, with the goal of performing construction after the 2026 season so the bulk of work would be completed for the 2027 season.

Public commenters at the meeting questioned whether the design work short‑circuited priorities raised in a concurrent parks and recreation master‑planning survey. Bradley Beringer (105 Crestwood Drive) told the committee that many survey respondents prioritized additional baseball fields and criticized the timing of the pool work, saying the city should await survey results before expending the $220,000. Madison Hickman (402 Lincoln Avenue) praised staff for clarifying that maintenance would not preclude a future addition and asked whether underground pipes might require earlier replacement; staff responded that the city had not identified leaks in underground lines and said known pump‑room piping issues would be addressed, but that hidden underground piping could fail at any time and would require separate work if discovered.

Committee members and staff also discussed crowding and demand. Seiler noted the facility continues to attract increasing usage and said there were eight days in the previous two weeks when attendance exceeded 1,000 people through the front gate. Committee members raised the possibility of differential fees for nonresidents but staff said the pool’s largely part‑time staffing model and administrative burden make enforcing that distinction difficult.

After discussion the committee voted unanimously to “move forward” with the recommendation that council authorize the Recreation Board to enter the professional services agreement with MSA Architects, with the $220,000 cap. Committee members did not request emergency legislation and said the recommendation is intended to finalize design documents and permit bidding.

The recommendation now goes to Troy City Council for final authorization; the committee recorded no amendments to the request at the meeting.