A Bitter Pill To Swallow
Vol. IV, No. 39 - No One Is Thrilled To Spend More Money on Pool Improvements
City Council’s Recreation and Parks Committee spent thirty‑two minutes working through the latest twist in the Troy Aquatic Park maintenance project. This was not a perfunctory sign‑off, as these committee meetings tend to be. Rather, it was a robust discussion and it ended with a recommendation that council increase the project budget from $1.7 million to $2.5 million and rebid the work.
Back in February, council authorized bidding for a maintenance‑only package at the aquatic park. The public description matched that narrow focus: this was about repairing the pool shell and joints, recoating the pool surface, addressing pump room and electrical work, replacing the baby pool heater, rebuilding the aging entrance canopy, repainting and recoating slides, and replacing worn lockers, fencing, concrete decking, gutters, and filtration sand. The total was presented as a $1.7 million project for a 22‑year‑old facility, aimed squarely at keeping an existing asset safe and functional, not expanding it. When council voted, that $1.7 million figure wasn’t just a talking point; it was expected to be the ceiling.
In mid‑May, the city opened two sealed bids for the work. Both landed around $2.4 million, roughly forty percent higher than the number council and residents had been told earlier in the year. Because Ohio law only allows the city to accept bids within ten percent of the authorized amount, staff couldn’t legally award the contract. Last month, the recreation board responded by recommending that council reset the cap at $2.5 million and rebid the project.
Staff pointed to several pressures behind the gap: general inflation and higher material costs, steel and fencing coming in more expensive than expected, more complicated electrical work around variable frequency drives, and joint repair estimates that were about $200,000 higher than anticipated. Those are real factors in today’s construction market, but they don’t change the basic fact that the city’s initial estimate missed badly.
During the meeting, committee members made it clear they still support doing the work. The pool is heavily used, draws strong attendance, and, unlike most public pools, operates close to break‑even on annual costs. Residents have also watched nearby facilities suffer mechanical failures and temporary closures, which underscores the risk of deferred maintenance. Staff were correct to remind council that pushing the work into future years almost certainly increases the final price and that waiting too long can force multi‑season shutdowns or, in some communities, permanent closure. Given that reality, council is unlikely to walk away from the project. The pool will probably be fixed between the end of the 2026 season and the start of 2027, as originally envisioned.
What’s less clear is whether the timeline is as solid as residents are being told. MSA Architects, the same firm whose estimate missed by roughly $800,000 – nearly 40 percent – is now assuring the city that the work can still be completed between the end of the 2026 pool season and the start of 2027. If the numbers were that far off on cost, residents have every reason to question how much confidence to put in those schedule assurances.
So the problem is not the decision to maintain the pool. The problem is how the city arrives at numbers that are this far off and then asks residents to simply accept the adjustment.
MSA sits at the center of that question. The city hired the firm to do the design and prepare bid documents for the maintenance project. The original $1.7 million package council approved was based on their work, and staff are now relaying MSA’s confidence that the project can still be completed on schedule if the higher authorization is granted.
At the same time, the bids based on that package came in nearly $700,000 higher than the amount council authorized, and residents are left with a 40 percent jump explained largely through general references to inflation and complexity.
Complicating matters further, this is a niche market. There are only a handful of specialized pool subcontractors, and both general contractors who bid relied on the same firms underneath their proposals. That limits the city’s leverage. It also makes accurate estimating even more important, not less.
If Troy is going to continue to lean on outside firms for design and planning, it has to be willing to say that when an estimate misses this badly, the city will reevaluate who gets future work. In practical terms, that means MSA should not be the automatic choice for subsequent phases or related projects at the aquatic park. At minimum, residents deserve a public, detailed explanation of what went wrong in the estimating process and what, specifically, would change next time.
This episode also doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The aquatic park has already been flagged for potential improvements beyond basic maintenance, and the city’s broader Parks and Recreation Master Plan points toward additional investments across the system. Residents have seen multiple rounds of consultant‑led planning and heard about possible borrowing for park upgrades. When a high‑profile project jumps from $1.7 million to $2.5 million in a matter of months, it raises larger questions: how reliable are the numbers attached to future park projects, and at what point does “the market changed” stop being an explanation and start being evidence that the city isn’t getting the right information to make informed decisions about huge capital expenditures?
Council is being asked to swallow a tough pill to keep a popular facility safe and open. Most members appear ready to do it, and reasonable people can agree that maintaining the pool is the right call. But residents should be clear‑eyed about what is at stake. This is not just about the cost of one project. It is about ensuring that what is happening with this project is the exeception and not the rule.
Announcing our July Community Survey!
Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.
Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!
This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.
Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.