Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Guthrie council gives Highland Park pool supporters 30 days to raise funds

5119587 · July 2, 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

The Guthrie City Council voted unanimously to give a citizen fundraising group 30 days to raise additional private funds for the Highland Park Pool project, while staff warned delays and post‑COVID construction cost increases will push the earliest possible opening beyond summer 2026.

The Guthrie City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to give a citizen fundraising group 30 days to demonstrate private funding for an expanded Highland Park Pool project before the council proceeds with the smaller, CIP‑funded design.

The move came after more than an hour of presentations, public comment and questions about three design options and the project’s budget, schedule and fundraising plan. The council’s direction asks the private pool supporters to report back in 30 days with a funding status the council can act on.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said construction costs have risen sharply since initial planning and that delays make a 2026 opening unlikely. The council previously allocated capital improvement program (CIP) funds to the pool; the private group is seeking additional donations so the city can consider a larger pool without increasing its cash contribution.

City Manager Eddie Faulkner told the council that staff had asked designers to prepare three options after a previous council direction, and reminded members that the project timeline already has slipped. “If we had been on schedule, construction would begin, like, next week,” Faulkner said. “So we are now behind on that schedule. Having a pool for summer of 2026 is probably off the table at this point.”

Resident Joe Chappell, who identified himself as a member of the community fundraising effort, told the council the group has collected pledges and is asking for 30 days to determine how much cash can be raised. “We have pledges right now for over $240,000,” Chappell said, adding that pledges are not the same as collected donations and that some donors might withdraw if the final design is not what they expect.

The three options discussed to replace the permanently closed historic pool were presented with estimated costs and footprints: Option A, a roughly 1,500‑square‑foot pool, estimated at about $2.1 million; Option B, about 3,000 square feet, estimated at roughly $3.6 million; and a midpoint option of about 2,300 square feet estimated near $2.8–$2.9 million. Faulkner and staff noted those figures are estimates and that bids could differ once the project is advertised.

Council members repeatedly cautioned that donors’ pledges may not translate into immediate cash. “There’s a chicken and egg question here,” Councilmember [unnamed] said during the discussion, noting that engineering and design work requires financial commitments and that the city should avoid spending significant public funds on planning without private funds actually in hand.

The council also reviewed prior CIP funding: $2,000,000 in a cash allocation is available for the project from CIP number 2, and staff said an additional $500,000 remains in the CIP term but is not an immediate cash allocation. Faulkner said staff has taken a conservative approach when presenting projects to keep proposals within current budget allocations.

After the public comment period and staff discussion, a motion to give the citizen fundraising group 30 days to report back on private fundraising passed unanimously. The motion directs staff to revisit the council in 30 days with the committee’s reported fundraising totals and any recommended next steps.

What wasn’t decided: The council did not commit to the larger designs; it left open the possibility that the CIP‑funded Option A (the smaller pool) would move forward if the private group does not meet the fundraising threshold within the 30‑day window. The council did not set a specific dollar target tied to a particular design in the motion; members asked the private group to specify fundraising goals and whether pledges are earmarked for a specific option.

Context and next steps: Staff warned that construction costs, tariffs and supply‑chain pressures since 2020 have increased project pricing substantially and that longer delays reduce the chance of a 2026 opening. The private group said it has organized bank, business and community outreach and has a donation account established through a local nonprofit to accept funds. The council will revisit the item after the 30‑day period and may take formal action then.