The Tellico Village Property Owners Association Board of Directors met roughly three hours May 16, with recreation topics eating up much of the time.

After a brief talk from a Summit Medical Group representative and the announcement of a clean audit report from Coulter & Justus, the meeting dove into a lengthy discussion about pool temperatures at the Wellness Center.

Jane Plumadore, a Village resident, kicked off the discussion, presenting the board with a petition signed by 672 Villagers asking for pool temperatures to be raised, as well as documents supporting the request.


“The promise of the indoor pool was one of the most important factors in choosing to come here, especially since I, like so many other Villagers, suffer from arthritis,” Plumadore said. “Unfortunately, I cannot use the exercise room for fear of further joint damage. So this pool is extremely important to me. My husband and I have both been members of the Wellness Center ever since the pool first opened, and we enjoyed the outdoor pool all last summer. Then, September came and we were shut out of using the indoor pool because we could not endure the very cold water. My story parallels hundreds of other Villagers. We all want and need this pool but can no longer use it because the water temperature is just too cold.”

The group requested that the main swimming pool in the Wellness Center be kept at 85 degrees and the therapy pool at 98 degrees.

A statement from the POA available on the website indicates the main pool will be kept at a range of 82-85 degrees and the therapy pool 92-95 degrees.

Kathleen Lewis presented the board with several charts detailing temperatures in the pool. One chart listed the average temperatures of the pools at 78 and 88.5, respectively. A second chart listed the average for the main pool at 82 degrees. A third chart listed the main pool at an average of 82.6 degrees, ranging from 80-84.

The first chart was the only one to list therapy pool temperatures.

“Both pools need to be maintained consistently and measured to the highest temperature, not the range,” Lewis said. “This is what is being petitioned here, the highest temperature in the agreement that you’ve already made.”

Bruce Johnson, board president, informed petitioners that the board would take the information “under advisement” and come back with a decision at the June board meeting.

“We will take into consideration your desires, we will take into consideration any legal aspects, and then we will come to a conclusion and that’s what we’ll implement,” he said.

Other board members agreed with Johnson that a month to look over all the data was necessary.

While the request is that temperatures be maintained at a consistent 85 and 98 degrees, Johnson told the audience a range would be decided.

“When you say the temperature has to be at a specific point, you can never get it to that point,” Johnson said. “It’s always going to fluctuate, so we need to agree on a range to begin with.

“... I can’t assure you that the water and the temperature is going to be within that range,” he added. “I can assure you that the heaters will be set to make that happen, but I can’t assure you that if you check the temperature over here in this part it’s going to be in that range but over here it’s above it. … I can assure that we will strive to get there and the heater will be set to reach that.”

One audience member voiced support for keeping temperatures in the pools as they are but was told by Plumadore that he is in the “small minority,” which led board members to ask that all in attendance be given a chance to voice an opinion.

There is no universal standard for pool temperatures. The World Health Organization lists 78-86 degrees as a “good range,” but the only recommendation made by the organization is that hot tubs be kept below 104 degrees.

Capital requests

The recreation department also came to the board with three capital funding requests during the meeting, with only one of the three approved.

First was a request for $25,000 for a recreation division master plan. Three firms bid on the plan with 110% Inc., as the recommended firm.

Pat White, board member, suggested the project be taken “in house” using an ad hoc committee under the supervision of Simon Bradbury, director of recreation.

White asked that Bradbury set out to answer what the most popular programs are and their growth, what concerns have been voiced, what the least popular programs are, what feedback is coming from tours, opinions of non-recreation members, what are programs at similar facilities and what are the target patrons.

“I have the faith and the confidence and the belief that these guys can do what we need to do,” White said. “If they can’t then that’s to me when we spend the money.”

Several board members agreed with White. Concern was also raised by Mike Colacone, board member, regarding the bidding process since every bid came in at about $25,000, which matched the amount budgeted for the project.

“In this one I told them I had about a $25,000 range because you’re looking typically at $60,000,” Bradbury said. “... I told them I needed a strategic master plan at this range.”

After discussion, the board asked that Bradbury work on the plan internally and update the board in July. The board will decide later if an outside firm is needed.

The board also tabled a $210,506 proposal for purchasing cardio equipment. The board had budgeted $220,000 for the purchase.

Bradbury presented the board with bids from two companies, Ready Fitness and FitWorX LLC. Both companies provided two equipment options and either a 3- or 5-year warranty. The highest bid was recommended after equipment from Ready Fitness was determined of higher quality.

Board members took issue with the bidding process, telling Bradbury that instead of receiving bids first, he should evaluate equipment and develop a bid for what the department wanted.

The request for equipment was tabled and Bradbury was told to either re-bid the equipment or come to the board with a sole source bid, and justification for taking that approach, from Ready Fitness.

“If we did not want FitWorX we should never have qualified them and said, ‘You are in fact qualified to supply a bid’,” Cap Purvis, board member, said. “So I cannot support that Ready Fitness be given this bid. It should be given to FitWorX in conjunction with our approved bid procedure.”

Kevin Stevens, POA attorney, noted TVPOA bid policy states that the lowest bid will not necessarily always be accepted.

The request for equipment was tabled and Bradbury was told to either re-bid the equipment or come to the board with a soul source bid, and justification for taking that approach, from Ready Fitness.