Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Aquatic Park topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Consultants say Troy Aquatic Park users want more seating, restrooms and practical upgrades; full expansions would cost millions

City of Troy — Parks & Recreation / City Council Work Session · December 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Consultants told the city the aquatic park’s users favor increased leisure water area, seating and restroom/concession upgrades rather than large novelty attractions. A full set of options in earlier studies totals about $6 million; consultants recommend phasing and pursuing grants rather than a referendum.

Consultants reported that users of the Troy Aquatic Park prioritized pragmatic upgrades — more seating and deck space, expanded restrooms and a new concession area — over large, costly attractions such as a lazy river. That guidance came from focus groups and the outreach survey during a May work session.

Matthew Rourke of American StructurePoint said the consultants asked respondents to rank options from an earlier aquatic study. The five options that rose to the top were primarily improvements to capacity and guest comfort rather than elaborate features. Rourke said the consultants combined community input and plan cost estimates and produced an itemized total of roughly $6,000,000 for the most extensive option, but emphasized the city could phase work and pursue grants.

Why it matters: consultants warned the community would likely be reluctant to approve a referendum to fund large amenities. “Pretty much said no,” Rourke told the group when describing whether respondents supported a referendum for major aquatic investments, and noted local voting patterns on past referenda as context.

Design detail: consultants recommended adding about 6,500 square feet of water area under the most expansive option and that the preferred leisure area should be roughly four feet deep rather than zero‑depth entry; council members clarified the slide wording to reflect a leisure pool depth appropriate for older children and adult users.

Next steps: consultants urged phasing improvements, integrating grant pursuit into project scoping, and prioritizing high‑impact, lower‑cost items such as restrooms and concession renovations while holding larger amenities as aspirational.