[0:00] All

[0:05] right, it's red. We are streaming.

[0:07] » Okay, we're ready to go.

[0:09] » All right,

[0:11] it is 7:01 p.m. on Monday

[0:17] the 29th of June, 2026. Um, and can I

[0:21] get a call to order of the meeting uh

[0:24] for Eastern Delaware County Joint Rector

[0:26] District? Mr. Henderson, can I get roll

[0:28] call, please?

[0:29] » Mr. McCoy

[0:29] » Here,

[0:30] » Miss Watson

[0:31] » Here,

[0:32] » Miss Greger

[0:33] » Here,

[0:34] » Miss Savvada

[0:35] » Here,

[0:36] » And Mr. Muzakio

[0:37] » Here.

[0:38] » Five present. We have a quorum.

[0:40] » Perfect. Um, first item on the agenda is

[0:44] the meeting minutes from May 21st, 2026.

[0:49] Does the board have any discussion?

[1:04] I'll I'll second that.

[1:08] » All right. Moved in and seconded.

[1:10] » Yeah, I was going to say I think we have

[1:12] an a correction we want to make.

[1:14] » Correct.

[1:15] » That is true. Uh there was a slight

[1:16] correction on who uh approved motion for

[1:20] resolution 20264.

[1:23] It would be Miss Watson approving. I

[1:25] second it

[1:27] correction.

[1:30] » All right. So with that correction, uh,

[1:33] Miss Watson,

[1:34] » Yes.

[1:34] » Mr. Koy,

[1:35] » Yes.

[1:36] » Miss Sabvada,

[1:37] » Can I abstain since I was not present.

[1:39] Thank you,

[1:41] » Mr. Mazakio.

[1:43] » Yes.

[1:44] » And Miss Greger,

[1:45] » I abstain. I was not present either.

[1:48] » Well, we probably do need a fourth.

[1:50] » Well, I think I could do it.

[1:52] Thanks.

[1:54] » All right. Motion approved. Uh 41.

[1:58] One.

[2:00] » Next item on the agenda is public

[2:02] comment. Um are there any visitors that

[2:05] would like to speak?

[2:08] » I don't know. Mayor, mayor, why don't

[2:10] you welcome people? Come on up here.

[2:12] » All right.

[2:14] No.

[2:16] You gave this nice pen. Tell them about

[2:18] the pen.

[2:22] All right, fair enough. We'll move on.

[2:24] » All right.

[2:25] » Uh, unfinished business.

[2:28] There are no stated items. The board

[2:30] have any discussion?

[2:36] Perfect.

[2:37] We'll move along.

[2:39] Uh, new business. And I think there's a

[2:42] site change um

[2:45] program and site layout updates. Is that

[2:48] correct?

[2:49] » Perfect.

[2:49] » Yes.

[2:53] Sounds great.

[2:53] » Great.

[3:03] » Thanks everybody for having us here

[3:04] tonight. Um, as a reminder, my name is

[3:06] Sophia Alonza. I'm the project manager

[3:08] for PUDI Solutions. We've been doing um

[3:11] some of the work on the Eastern Delaware

[3:13] County Joint Rec District Community

[3:15] Center. Um, and so tonight we have a few

[3:18] different topics to talk to you about.

[3:19] Um we'll have MSA and Katie Freeland

[3:22] going over um some of the programming

[3:26] just as a kind of reminder of where we

[3:27] left off back in April, but also showing

[3:30] some new um graphics to help visualize

[3:33] uh what we're what we're showing and

[3:35] then we'll be going through some of the

[3:36] site criteria. So part of our engagement

[3:39] with phase 2 was to do um site

[3:42] selection. So we are going to walk you

[3:44] through that process and hopefully get

[3:46] an approval for the criteria. So, I'll

[3:48] pass it off to Katie.

[3:56] » So, again, as a reminder to the board,

[3:58] we we won't be projecting the um slides,

[4:01] but that you do have those in front of

[4:02] you uh in the packet that she'll be

[4:05] walking through both of Yeah, there you

[4:07] go. Great. Thank you.

[4:09] » All right. So, again, Katie Freeland

[4:11] with MSA Design. Um we're just going to

[4:13] give you kind of a quick update of what

[4:14] we have been working on in the

[4:15] background in terms of the program of

[4:18] the building. So again, not just the

[4:19] amenities that are going into the

[4:20] building, things that are proposed. Um

[4:22] the first slide that I will direct you

[4:24] to is the one that says program April

[4:26] 2026 programming diagram. So just as a

[4:30] reminder, that is where we left things

[4:32] off after our series of community

[4:34] engagement sessions. Um throughout that

[4:37] series of workshops, we really focused

[4:39] on getting feedback from the community

[4:40] as well as you all on the types of

[4:42] spaces uh that might be desirable in

[4:45] this future community recreation center.

[4:48] Um and then the diagram was really

[4:49] capturing kind of what what those spaces

[4:52] could be um in in a diagrammatic way. Um

[4:56] we left things off with a building that

[4:58] was approximately 90,000 square feet um

[5:02] with about 10% of expansion that was

[5:05] dashed in on there. Just understanding

[5:06] there there are still many decisions to

[5:08] be made and many things to be validated.

[5:11] At that time we were also considering a

[5:13] potential partner space. Um, so square

[5:16] footage of that really wasn't very well

[5:18] vetted or necessarily discussed, but for

[5:20] just for the sake of the diagram, that

[5:21] was about 25,000 square feet.

[5:26] So, if you go to the next program

[5:29] diagram,

[5:31] um, ultimately the intention of this is

[5:34] once we get through the site selection

[5:36] criteria, we will then be providing a

[5:39] more developed floor plan and site plan

[5:42] for each of the sites that are under

[5:44] consideration. And the goal of that is

[5:45] really to help you all understand kind

[5:47] of the impact of that site as it means

[5:50] to the building and then the surrounding

[5:52] amenities associated with that. Um as

[5:54] part of that we went ahead and started

[5:56] developing and this is sort of just a

[5:58] test program a test floor plan of what

[6:00] that might look like. So the intention

[6:02] is once some of these sites are under

[6:04] consideration we will then use this kind

[6:07] of footprint modified um to reflect the

[6:10] sites that are being discussed. Um, so

[6:12] in this particular version of a plan and

[6:14] it is starting to look a little bit more

[6:16] like a plan, but please keep in mind

[6:17] this is just sort of a working document

[6:19] and you know is going to will change as

[6:22] we move forward. Um, we are continuing

[6:24] to show a building footprint of about

[6:26] 90,000 square foot. On this particular

[6:28] one, um, we were starting to suggest

[6:31] there might be a mezzanine space. Um,

[6:32] one of the programming elements that was

[6:34] discussed was an elevated running or

[6:37] walking track that might be above the

[6:39] gym space. So in this particular

[6:41] footprint, you know, it started to make

[6:42] sense maybe putting some uh fitness

[6:44] space up there as well. Um this is

[6:46] showing programming rooms, a fitness

[6:48] floor. Um we are starting to

[6:50] diagrammatically show kind of what I

[6:53] would say focus maybe more on the amount

[6:55] of fitness equipment that could fit in a

[6:57] fitness floor of that size, not

[6:59] necessarily the type of equipment. Um

[7:00] this is really just to kind of help you

[7:02] understand scale of the space. Um, so

[7:05] again, this ended up about a 90,000 ft

[7:08] footprint with a 4,000 square ft

[7:11] mezzanine. Um, we are not necessarily

[7:13] building an additional expansion space

[7:15] or that partner space in this diagram,

[7:18] but certainly can do so as we start to

[7:20] test fit some of the sites um, moving

[7:23] forward. In terms of continuing vetting

[7:26] and refinement of the program, um I

[7:28] would ask you as we just continue all of

[7:31] the other discussions and points that we

[7:33] will continue to explore with you

[7:34] throughout this process. Um one of

[7:37] course your ongoing feedback will be

[7:39] considered and put into whatever that

[7:42] developed program will be. So if you

[7:44] have any ideas, questions,

[7:45] considerations, please make sure that

[7:47] you're bringing those up. Um

[7:48] [clears throat] there will be some

[7:50] operational considerations that we will

[7:52] want to make sure the uh programming

[7:55] document kind of follows along with that

[7:57] process. And I will just give you a

[7:58] couple for instances. Um if you uh

[8:02] ultimately decide from an operational

[8:04] standpoint uh you are maybe building out

[8:06] a more robust operational plan um and

[8:09] would like to offer you know a large

[8:11] series of types of fitness classes, art

[8:14] classes, um community interest classes,

[8:17] we might start to suggest that we have

[8:19] more of those kind of multiuse types of

[8:21] spaces reflected in the program. um if

[8:25] you ultimately is starting to lean

[8:26] towards something that is more um

[8:29] streamlined and it's operational and

[8:31] maybe some of those types of flexible

[8:32] spaces aren't as desired, we may pull

[8:35] back some of those types of spaces. Um I

[8:38] know a competition pool has been

[8:40] requested. Um that is something that

[8:43] would start to then have an operational

[8:45] aspect on it. Uh so right now for the

[8:48] diagram we are showing just a 25 m pool.

[8:51] We're not showing a 50 m pool, but

[8:53] certainly um I think there is space in

[8:55] there where something like that could

[8:56] start to layer in. Um just again when

[8:59] you start talking about operation and

[9:02] operating something that could be used

[9:03] more from a competitive swim standpoint,

[9:06] um there is impact on the use of that

[9:08] for your community members. Um does that

[9:10] want to be in the same space as the

[9:12] other aquatics? There's a lot of kind of

[9:14] conversation that we can continue to

[9:15] have about that moving forward. Um but

[9:18] for sort of a base level set as we study

[9:21] the sites this is kind of where we

[9:23] landed um at the end of the the first

[9:25] phase of this engagement um we have

[9:27] taken the liberty to add in some kind of

[9:29] ancillary and accessory support pieces

[9:31] just as we've developed it some office

[9:33] space restrooms storage those types of

[9:36] things that we think would naturally

[9:38] kind of follow along the program that

[9:40] was developed but we have not altered

[9:42] kind of the base set of program

[9:43] substantially from what where we left

[9:45] things off. So, any questions on that

[9:48] before I

[9:53] flip the next one? Okay.

[9:55] And then the last diagram here in your

[9:58] packet is a site diagram. Um, so what we

[10:02] did for this one, and again, you'll see

[10:04] kind of this format translated to the

[10:07] sites that will ultimately be

[10:08] considered. Um, but for the sake of this

[10:11] exercise, we are just showing a generic

[10:13] 7acre box. That's what that dashed blue

[10:15] line is around that. Um, we are showing

[10:18] that building footprint from the

[10:20] previous slide. So that 90,000 square

[10:21] foot building footprint. Um, and then we

[10:24] are showing the associated parking spots

[10:27] for a building of that size sitting on

[10:30] that footprint. So again, for the sake

[10:32] of this, I took Sunbur's [clears throat]

[10:34] um zoning code. They are requiring 200

[10:37] spots for one spot for every 200 square

[10:40] feet of exercise space. So, as we refine

[10:42] the program, you know, that number might

[10:44] shift a little bit just depending on

[10:46] what we're categorizing and what's being

[10:48] provided in terms of exercise space. Um,

[10:50] but for this one, it ended up about 390

[10:53] spaces. So, you can see that that pretty

[10:55] much fills a 7 acre site. When we get

[10:57] the the associated parking with that,

[11:00] um, certainly there are opportunities.

[11:02] We can start looking at a multi-story

[11:04] building. we can really um be much more

[11:07] selective about what we classify as

[11:09] exercise space and really kind of drill

[11:10] down to what that really means and make

[11:12] sure that we're not overp parking the

[11:13] site. Um but just to get you sort of a

[11:16] base level understanding of how that

[11:18] might look on a on a generic site. Um we

[11:22] thought this might be helpful as you're

[11:23] going through the selection criteria

[11:25] matrix this evening.

[11:28] » I do have a question. So I know one of

[11:30] the things we talked about needed some

[11:31] additional work was um you know outdoor

[11:33] field space. Do we have any rough ideas

[11:35] of like what like acreage would be we

[11:38] would be looking at?

[11:40] We can provide that. I think one of the

[11:43] things and I think we'll probably talk

[11:44] about it when we get into the site

[11:45] selection. Um I believe it was left with

[11:49] studying the sites seeing what

[11:51] opportunities of sites have for that

[11:53] type of expansion but not necessarily

[11:56] build that in today into this criteria.

[11:59] » So it might be a little bit of a back

[12:00] and forth. I guess that's not a great

[12:02] answer, but it'll be a little bit back

[12:03] and forth once we get the sites and we

[12:04] understand what they're um what is

[12:07] available and then we can start giving

[12:09] you some idea of how that might lay out.

[12:11] But certainly we could pull together an

[12:13] acreage of kind of a base level outdoor,

[12:16] you know, practice space what that could

[12:18] look like as well.

[12:19] » Yeah. And what you just said was my

[12:21] understanding as well, but I was just

[12:22] trying to gauge in, you know, my mind's

[12:24] eye, you know, if we were to find a site

[12:26] that could accommodate both like what

[12:28] rough acreage would look like. But I

[12:30] understand what you're saying.

[12:34] [snorts]

[12:37] Any other questions on that? All right.

[12:40] Well, you'll see more of these types of

[12:42] diagrams again moving forward. Um I

[12:44] think once we start applying that to the

[12:46] site, um obviously that conversation

[12:48] will evolve and develop, but if you have

[12:51] any other thoughts about what we've sort

[12:53] of thrown into that base understanding,

[12:55] please let us know. Um thank you.

[12:59] Thank you.

[13:09] » Um, with the outdoor fields, I do think

[13:12] that, um, so what Katie has said is is

[13:15] where we're leaving off. I I know that

[13:17] internally we've been thinking about the

[13:18] size of Bevelr Park for an outdoor

[13:21] facility, which is about 140 acres. So,

[13:24] um, with the site selection, we we do

[13:27] have it as a consideration for, um, like

[13:30] expansion space, um, for potentially

[13:33] outdoor fields. So, it is something that

[13:34] we're considering, but we're not

[13:36] limiting ourselves to only looking at

[13:38] sites that would accommodate for 140

[13:41] acres, if that makes sense.

[13:43] » Yeah. And so, when you say 140 acres, is

[13:46] that like all their various zones

[13:47] because they have like the yellow zone

[13:48] and Okay.

[13:49] » Yeah. Yes.

[13:54] Um, so I'll go ahead and get started

[13:57] with a little bit of the site evaluation

[13:59] process. So our team over the past few

[14:02] weeks has been working to compile a list

[14:04] of potential sites. So these are both

[14:07] publicly owned. There are some sites

[14:09] that are for sale and then also some

[14:12] additional sites that we're looking at

[14:13] that aren't currently listed for sale

[14:15] but perhaps could be um owned by a

[14:17] community partner. So that's something

[14:19] that we're considering. We have about 15

[14:21] sites right now. Um we've compiled some

[14:24] site profiles for these which include um

[14:27] the size, owner, if they're for sale,

[14:30] what they are for sale acreage wise, um

[14:33] what available utilities are near the

[14:35] site as well. So um we are creating

[14:38] these site profiles for our team but

[14:40] then also for your team um as we will

[14:42] have you kind of uh rank these sites. Um

[14:46] but our team will be going through and

[14:48] at least evaluating likely it'll be more

[14:52] than 10 but um we do say 10 sites right

[14:54] now. Um I think the sites that we have

[14:56] picked out are worth really looking at.

[14:59] So 10 to 15 is what we will be ranking

[15:01] as a project team. The highest ranking

[15:04] sites will be evaluated by the board

[15:07] members. So, we are going to see where

[15:11] the natural break is, but this will

[15:13] likely be five between five and three

[15:15] sites that we will have each member of

[15:17] the EDJRD board ranking. Um, we will end

[15:22] up combining these scores with what we

[15:25] have included to get some top

[15:27] contenders. And so with this, we will

[15:30] then start to do um a process of just

[15:34] reaching out to the owners depending on

[15:36] if it's publicly owned, whether it is

[15:38] private or for sale. So um to reiterate

[15:42] the process, um we will be ranking 10 to

[15:44] 15 sites as a project team. From there,

[15:47] we would like to schedule um a meeting

[15:49] with the EDJRD board, likely um perhaps

[15:52] a two-hour session. And I know that

[15:54] there's been discussion on um what needs

[15:58] to be done. So I know that there has

[15:59] been desire to do a ranking by all of

[16:02] the EDJRD board members. So if we need

[16:04] to do an executive session or if there's

[16:06] some type of committee that we need to

[16:08] form then we're happy to do that. But um

[16:10] I think that it would be worth having

[16:11] all members

[16:14] uh rank the sites. And for this we'll

[16:17] provide you with those site profiles

[16:18] that we are creating. But then also we

[16:21] will be available to answer any

[16:23] questions so that we can move through

[16:24] the rankings together. We think that

[16:26] having everyone in one room would be

[16:28] helpful to really create um a

[16:31] consistency across scoring. So um we

[16:34] wouldn't want you know the mindset to

[16:36] shift a little bit after you take some

[16:38] time to really re-evaluate. So having it

[16:41] in one session with everyone in our team

[16:43] available for questions we think is

[16:45] going to be the best option. That's what

[16:46] we would recommend.

[16:49] I've included um a schedule. I believe

[16:52] this is on slide eight or nine. Um and

[16:54] this is just walking you through our

[16:55] process. So our team is going to take

[16:58] the next two weeks to review these sites

[17:01] and score them. Um and then we would

[17:05] like to meet with you relatively

[17:08] quickly. Um so ideally either the 21st,

[17:13] 22nd, 29th or 30th um would be

[17:16] preferable. I know that sometimes

[17:18] everyone's schedule is busy so if we

[17:19] need to adjust we can we can do that but

[17:22] um just to throw out some dates so that

[17:23] we are staying on a tight timeline. Um

[17:27] and then we would like to have

[17:32] about what is this about three and a

[17:33] half weeks to create a draft program um

[17:36] and a draft recommendation to provide to

[17:38] the board. So we'll be taking all of the

[17:40] combined sites and creating a uh

[17:43] recommendation to provide to you which

[17:45] will um lay out all the rankings where

[17:48] they scored um but then also kind of how

[17:51] to proceed depending on what the site

[17:52] is. So we'll be able to provide some

[17:54] recommendations on um an acquisition or

[17:57] what whatever the mechanism for

[17:59] acquiring a site would be.

[18:02] Um recommendations obviously will depend

[18:05] on the owners. So if it's a public site,

[18:07] perhaps there's just um a land lease,

[18:09] but also if it's um private, perhaps

[18:11] there's option to purchase. So we'll go

[18:13] through what those recommendations are

[18:16] in um a recommendation that we present.

[18:19] Are there any questions on the schedule

[18:21] or the process?

[18:27] Okay,

[18:29] if you go to the next slide, we have

[18:31] just um two slides that are covering

[18:34] everything that's on our site evaluate

[18:36] evaluation matrix. You can see what um

[18:39] items are weighted at. So um all of

[18:42] these criteria will be ranked 0 through

[18:46] 10. Um and then obviously the score will

[18:49] be impacted by whatever the weight is.

[18:50] So these are about um weighted 1 through

[18:54] 10. Um I believe the highest that we

[18:55] might have is just an eight right now.

[18:57] But um those are dependent on obviously

[19:00] what is uh more important and for for

[19:02] our team we find that um utilities and

[19:06] um the the site features are some of the

[19:09] more important. So those are heavier

[19:11] heav he heavily weighted. Um you can you

[19:14] can see that throughout the sections,

[19:16] but um I'd like to go section by section

[19:19] and I've included a little bit closer of

[19:20] a screenshot on the following slides

[19:24] just to um see if there are any

[19:27] questions or comments. I'm happy to walk

[19:29] through each of them individually if

[19:30] that would be helpful. We have been

[19:32] working with um Bernie, Todd, and Daryl

[19:36] um during our bi-weekly meetings to

[19:39] discuss these criteria, what they're

[19:41] weighted. Um so we have uh reflected

[19:45] those conversations in this updated

[19:48] drawing. Um

[19:49] » Yeah so so if I could say I know slides

[19:52] nine and 10 are a little small but they

[19:54] break out on beginning on slide 11. So

[19:56] just they so each individual section is

[19:59] just a little bit bigger and I think a

[20:01] little bit easier to read. So yeah.

[20:10] Are there any questions on the site

[20:12] features?

[20:14] » Oh, we're just going section by section,

[20:15] not line item by line item.

[20:16] » If if that's what you would prefer,

[20:18] happy to. Yeah,

[20:19] » It's hard to read this. I know I have it

[20:21] here.

[20:21] » Okay.

[20:22] » Is this the same?

[20:23] » Yeah.

[20:24] » Yeah, actually the packet. You're right.

[20:26] The packet is easier to read.

[20:28] » Sorry about that. Makes sense.

[20:34] So yeah, on packet page five it begins.

[20:44] » I have

[20:46] » I think one of the questions I had and

[20:47] it was one of my comments uh that I had

[20:49] I wasn't able to make the meeting but um

[20:52] hopefully it made sense. Number

[20:57] nine on the packet. Uh site is not

[21:00] designated as flood plane or wetland. I

[21:03] think for me

[21:05] » Um the building does not want to be at

[21:07] all.

[21:08] » Yeah.

[21:09] » The the park the the path

[21:12] to worry about

[21:13] » Now the field space uh we have it here

[21:16] at one of the elementary schools. Every

[21:18] time it rains it floods. It's kind of

[21:20] tough for soccer and the other sports.

[21:22] So I think a generic statement that the

[21:24] whole field say we go for 150

[21:26] » Acres

[21:28] » I think find some parcels for areas

[21:32] where we have the building and the path.

[21:35] So I think for me it's a little higher

[21:37] like because flood plane introduces a

[21:40] lot of issues building

[21:43] » So I'd rather not sink that money into

[21:45] the foundation.

[21:46] » Yeah. No that's a a valid concern. I

[21:49] think um we there are also I mean

[21:52] remediation techniques that can be done

[21:55] um to for the wetland. Um but if it is

[22:00] um a general consensus that it would

[22:02] rather not be something that the board

[22:05] worries about then we can obviously

[22:07] bring it up higher. I think um you'll

[22:09] notice that some of these are weighted

[22:11] the highest. So the first item, second

[22:13] and third um have a particularly high

[22:16] waiting. That's just because we find

[22:17] that'll be the easiest for the for the

[22:19] um board to acquire. Um and so we do

[22:23] have everything else kind of based off

[22:25] of what we find to be the most important

[22:29] aspects. So, um we could always move

[22:32] that up. I think it would be worth our

[22:34] team taking a look at what else is

[22:35] weighted high if we do adjust.

[22:39] » Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need

[22:41] to make the whole thing generically

[22:43] higher or lower. I I would like to see

[22:45] it broken out,

[22:46] » Okay,

[22:47] » Into if it's a seven acres or 12 acres

[22:50] and small lot and it's not in a flood

[22:52] plane,

[22:53] » It goes up for me,

[22:54] » But if it's seven acres,

[22:57] it's not really viable for walking

[22:59] paths.

[23:00] » Yeah.

[23:01] » So, I'd like to see it broken up if

[23:04] possible.

[23:08] » Landed on that call.

[23:11] Yeah, I think I think we ended up moving

[23:13] it up. I I can't remember if we started

[23:15] at a one or two, but the idea was yeah,

[23:17] that it needed to be more heavily

[23:19] weighted. I think because of your

[23:21] comments, Bernie, what we didn't do is

[23:23] we didn't we we didn't differentiate

[23:25] between how much land, you know, needs

[23:28] to be available for a building for it to

[23:30] be weighted higher. So, I think what you

[23:33] were saying is that so let's let's just

[23:36] go back to kind of our sample, right? We

[23:38] is seven acres kind of the minimum site.

[23:40] Actually, seven acres gets you parking

[23:43] and get you the building. I guess

[23:45] probably your point is if you can get

[23:47] seven acres of land that's out of a

[23:50] flood plane, that's higher.

[23:52] » If you got 10 acres and seven of it's

[23:55] out of the flood plane, that's good. The

[23:56] other three we can work with.

[23:58] » Yeah.

[23:59] » So, yeah. and and that I think we were

[24:01] struggling a little bit with how to kind

[24:02] of differentiate the components,

[24:04] » But maybe that's

[24:07] » Maybe we go back and trying to take a

[24:08] little bit of a stab at that. But but we

[24:10] did try to increase the weight correct

[24:12] to kind of to your point. So

[24:14] » Yeah, maybe it's a reference point.

[24:15] Maybe it's seven acres or maybe make it

[24:17] a little bit bigger, not the 10.

[24:19] » Yeah. Or maybe Yeah. So maybe maybe the

[24:21] question maybe it's something like at

[24:22] least you know at least seven acres is

[24:25] outside the flood plane, right? And

[24:27] again that's if so that's a again maybe

[24:29] that's a five

[24:30] » And we got to think towards expansion if

[24:32] we right now we offer 10% in for

[24:34] expansion we realize we growing

[24:37] » Yeah so maybe it's at least 10 acres

[24:40] » 15

[24:44] be helpful

[24:54] » Okay

[24:55] » I think we talked on the call like item

[24:58] one, two, and three kind of exclusive.

[25:00] So you're only giving points for one of

[25:02] those other

[25:06] » Right

[25:08] kind of

[25:09] » Unique like that. You're only getting

[25:11] points.

[25:12] » Correct.

[25:22] » Yeah. And then maybe Miss Watson to your

[25:24] point I Item number four. So the site

[25:27] provides adequate usable area for for

[25:30] the proposed current scope. Again, we're

[25:32] still working through what that scope

[25:33] is,

[25:34] » But the point I mean this is this is

[25:36] weighted pretty high, right? It's

[25:38] basically the land's got to, you know,

[25:40] meet the scope um without being

[25:42] oversized. [cough and clears throat] And

[25:44] at some point as we get closer to the

[25:46] final scoring, you're probably going to

[25:48] have to start weighing in, you know,

[25:50] whether or not it's got some outdoor

[25:52] recreational space. Does that fit the

[25:54] quote scope that we ultimately land on?

[26:00] Again, it may not be an exact number,

[26:02] and I think that's kind of where we've

[26:03] landed that I don't know that we're

[26:05] going to have an exact number of how

[26:06] many how much additional land how much

[26:08] additional land, you know, is adequate,

[26:11] but we'll we know that it needs to be

[26:13] something, right? We I think that's kind

[26:16] of the message that the public has said

[26:18] that it should have some outdoor

[26:19] recreational value.

[26:22] And when we if we get a site that shows

[26:24] 30 acres, that's going to score higher

[26:26] than one that has 12, right?

[26:28] » Because it's going to fit the scope

[26:30] better,

[26:31] » You know, in the long run. And the scope

[26:33] is more outdoor a little more outdoor

[26:35] recreational space.

[26:38] » But again, we'll we'll score this as a

[26:40] unit as uh as Sophia said. So So there's

[26:45] still be kind of a chance to talk

[26:47] through that. Yeah.

[26:48] » As it relates to each site. And again,

[26:50] we'll probably end up doing that in

[26:51] executive session so we don't end up,

[26:53] you know, letting the land owner know,

[26:55] you know, where the preference might be.

[27:00] » So with the um with that first site

[27:02] features section, um I think that this

[27:06] really is kind of like setting the whole

[27:07] scene for what site it is. Um, so you

[27:11] know, discussion of property owner, um,

[27:14] what is the usable area, is there

[27:17] significant regrading that needs to be

[27:18] done. These are all things that likely

[27:20] will kind of cost the board a little bit

[27:22] more money. Um, so we're taking into

[27:24] consideration all of those things.

[27:26] » So 11, where it says existing site

[27:29] features and amenities contribute to the

[27:31] proposed development, are we talking

[27:32] about like utilities or so? Um the

[27:36] existing site features perhaps there is

[27:39] um I know some of the sites are near um

[27:42] some of the baseball fields um big

[27:44] walnut high school. So you know that

[27:46] would

[27:46] » Be um a positive

[27:49] » Uh feature for the site. So uh items

[27:52] like that

[27:53] » Or but yes utilities as well. Okay.

[28:01] » Are there any additional questions on

[28:03] the site features?

[28:07] for any if so for 12 a site does not

[28:10] require parcel assembly for multiple

[28:12] owners. I mean to the extent that there

[28:14] is a parcel that requires like assembly

[28:17] for multiple owners I mean do we know

[28:19] what the process is for that or will we

[28:22] » Yeah. So um I mean I think that it would

[28:25] really just be um I mean likely there is

[28:26] a zoning um change but then also just

[28:30] working with the local

[28:32] » Okay. jurisdiction.

[28:42] » Um I do think that it was a little bit

[28:44] higher um because now it is just at a

[28:47] three. We

[28:50] um are not anticipating

[28:53] much of a push back with that.

[29:06] Well, the next one,

[29:07] » Right? Uh, with zoning and legal, we did

[29:10] uh take some of these down a little bit,

[29:11] but um we have most of these ranked at

[29:14] number one. Um, zoning allows proposed

[29:17] use. Uh, current zoning provides

[29:19] flexibility and potential uses of the of

[29:22] the property. um no overlay districts um

[29:27] requiring restrictions um and then no

[29:30] additional commission approvals are

[29:32] required. So um you know zoning is

[29:34] something that can be changed relatively

[29:36] easily working with um your local

[29:39] jurisdiction but uh it would save time

[29:42] and funds not having to reszone. So that

[29:46] was the thought process behind that

[29:47] being the highest weighted item um for

[29:50] number 17. I know that um I believe uh

[29:54] Sunberry and Galina just have their own

[29:57] um commissions, but then uh with

[29:59] Berkshire Township, you would have to go

[30:01] through the Delaware County um

[30:03] commission, which might take a little

[30:04] bit more time. So, we we have that one

[30:06] on there specifically just because of

[30:08] the jurisdictional requirements.

[30:16] Any

[30:23] comments on zoning

[30:26] » For so for the liquor license

[30:27] availability is that for like you know

[30:29] flex space uses and yeah so future use

[30:32] if you ever wanted to host events I mean

[30:34] we haven't really talked about event

[30:35] space or multi-purpose but um flex

[30:38] future expansion anything like

[30:54] I can um move on to site context if

[30:57] there are no more questions regarding

[30:58] that. Um so with the site context, this

[31:01] is really about kind of the use of the

[31:03] site and what the space is. So, um, we

[31:06] have a number of different items on

[31:07] here, but proposed community center

[31:09] would benefit from nearby and existing

[31:12] development, support services, and

[31:13] amenities. Um, I think

[31:18] we we increased this one a little bit,

[31:20] but not by much. Um, it is still

[31:23] weighted at a four, so pretty moderate.

[31:25] I think comparing what is surrounding

[31:28] it, if it's in an industrial space, we

[31:32] would likely consider that site a little

[31:34] bit less than something that was perhaps

[31:35] in a residential area or closer to the

[31:38] schools. So, making sure that the

[31:40] development fits within what is

[31:42] surrounding it um the context of the

[31:44] site, but then also existing

[31:46] adjacencies.

[31:48] um providing uh visibility support civic

[31:51] presence landmarks. So something that's

[31:53] maybe closer located to the uh downtown

[31:56] or the core of one of the EDJRD

[32:00] um members. But then we also have uh

[32:04] community supports the proposed

[32:05] development and location. And so we

[32:07] found through our survey that there were

[32:10] there was an overwhelming amount of

[32:11] support. But I think um depending on

[32:14] where this is located, if it's closer to

[32:16] residential, closer to schools, we found

[32:18] that those uh items or those locations

[32:22] were more highly requested. So, um a

[32:25] little bit more about where the general

[32:27] area for a site would be.

[32:34] For number 18, it states uh there would

[32:38] be nearby existing development. What

[32:40] about any future upcoming development

[32:43] that is in the works? Are you take that

[32:45] into account as well then or

[32:47] » Yes. So, uh we are taking that into

[32:49] account especially the work that Rick

[32:50] did. Um the urban decision group sites

[32:53] uh showed a lot of proposed development.

[32:55] So that is definitely something that we

[32:56] will be taking into consideration. Um

[33:01] number 20 is proposed development will

[33:03] positively impact adjacent future

[33:05] development. So I think that we feel

[33:07] that is covered under that item. But um

[33:11] with this grouping of criteria in

[33:14] particular, we'll be heavily relying on

[33:16] Rick's information and what he collected

[33:19] um especially in the maps that he made.

[33:21] So showing where it is located or where

[33:24] potential sites are located in context

[33:27] to proposed development of residential

[33:30] space but also uh residential and then

[33:33] also the other potential or other

[33:36] facilities surrounding the area.

[33:38] » Okay.

[33:43] » Yeah. And I I would just add a little

[33:44] bit related to that item 31 under

[33:47] economic opportunities and benefits. The

[33:49] proposed development will encourage you

[33:51] know adjacent private development that

[33:53] creates positive economic impact. So so

[33:55] the first one seems to suggest that you

[33:57] know that something is about to happen.

[33:59] The other one maybe suggests that it

[34:01] could encourage that to happen. What's

[34:03] up?

[34:21] just for my understanding context. Uh

[34:24] could you define community partners? I

[34:26] have something in mind. What does it

[34:27] mean to you?

[34:28] » So I think it is subjective that that

[34:30] certainly is um the case but also you

[34:32] know there are a number of new um

[34:35] residential developments going in. So

[34:37] perhaps if there was a desire to swap or

[34:42] donate some land so that there would be

[34:44] a community center nearby. So I think

[34:45] community partner could be the schools,

[34:48] it could be a private developer, it

[34:49] could be um village of Galina or

[34:53] Sunberry um a community partner in that

[34:55] aspect. So I think it's uh just a an

[34:59] entity willing to work with our team.

[35:04] » Okay.

[35:27] » [clears throat and cough]

[35:27] » I know my notes stated quite a bit

[35:29] higher, but I that's why I wanted to

[35:31] clarify what community partner meant,

[35:32] how that worked together. Um, I had it

[35:35] significantly higher

[35:38] because I want this to be a community

[35:41] center. I don't want this to be in the

[35:43] corner of our jurisdiction and nobody's

[35:45] around. I need this to be part of

[35:46] everybody else.

[35:47] » Yeah.

[35:47] » In heart.

[35:49] » That's why I think it's important to be

[35:51] cognizant of our community partners, who

[35:54] they are, what their plans are, talk to

[35:55] them, work with them, grow with them.

[36:00] » Yeah,

[36:02] » We we do think that um the community

[36:04] partners is a very important aspect to

[36:07] this development. I think like I

[36:09] mentioned earlier having um utilities

[36:12] and the site context some items in that

[36:14] weighted particularly higher. We wanted

[36:15] to make sure that it was all relative.

[36:17] Um I think that with um community

[36:20] support of the development but then also

[36:23] um we have number 18 rated relatively

[36:26] weighted weighted relatively high. Um we

[36:29] think that these are going to positively

[36:32] impact uh just based on the community

[36:35] support. Okay.

[36:40] One take away I had was there several

[36:42] items.

[36:45] » Yeah.

[36:46] » Look at it as a whole.

[36:51] » Yeah.

[36:58] » Great.

[37:00] » Um so utilities, both of these are rated

[37:03] pretty highly. We only have two items.

[37:05] Um, we find that it can be like

[37:08] relatively subjective when you're

[37:09] reviewing utilities and we have had

[37:11] enough experience with projects where

[37:13] utilities are either not available on

[37:15] the site or uh located right relatively

[37:19] far away. And so we find that these are

[37:20] two very important um aspects when

[37:23] considering a site. So, um, if they're

[37:25] not already on the site or very closely

[37:28] adjacent, we find that, um, 500 ft is a

[37:31] relatively acceptable distance, um, just

[37:34] based on previous experience for how

[37:36] much it would be to extend a utility,

[37:38] um, along with any tapping capacity fees

[37:40] usually. So, if it is not adjacent or on

[37:43] the site itself, we still have an

[37:45] opportunity to provide some points

[37:48] rather than just saying they're there

[37:49] are no utilities available on the site.

[37:51] So if they're not on the site directly

[37:54] um they should be within 500 ft and you

[37:57] know very similarly say three utilities

[38:01] are available there's water sewer

[38:03] electric but there's no um power or I

[38:05] mean I'm sorry you know there are some

[38:08] available utilities but they're not all

[38:10] available then you could also rank that

[38:12] second option um with that as well and

[38:16] the profiles that we'll provide to you

[38:18] um will have at least some information

[38:20] regarding starting utilities um and what

[38:22] is available.

[38:24] So, you won't have to find find that out

[38:26] on your own. We'll we'll figure that

[38:28] out.

[38:30] » Yeah. I've been told several times that

[38:32] sewer is the name of the game you're out

[38:34] here. So,

[38:35] » Yeah,

[38:35] » That to me ranks a lot higher other

[38:38] ones.

[38:39] » Yes. Yeah. Um

[38:40] » That out.

[38:41] » Yeah, we we um have had a few projects

[38:44] up in this area that utilities are not

[38:47] available. Um, and you'll find out

[38:49] either a little bit later than you would

[38:51] like to. So, we're making sure that this

[38:52] is definitely a priority when we're

[38:54] reviewing these sites.

[38:57] » Now, when I went to the new wall with

[39:00] the fieldhouse, they mentioned they have

[39:02] their they planned everything to go on

[39:04] septic.

[39:05] » Yeah.

[39:06] » And in the process, they got soup. So,

[39:08] that's big s. So, that's always another

[39:10] option to explore it. But

[39:13] » So they um I'm the project manager for

[39:17] that as well. Um and we had started with

[39:20] septic and then it was proving to be a

[39:23] little bit difficult to find a septic

[39:24] tank that is of that size that you would

[39:26] need for a facility that size. Um it is

[39:28] definitely possible but um it is just a

[39:30] more expensive option.

[39:32] » Yeah.

[39:32] » Yeah. They mentioned the cost was about

[39:34] half.

[39:35] » Yeah. There are additional um facilities

[39:37] that you have to build too um when you

[39:39] do septic. So Okay. Um it is it is

[39:42] always an option. It would not be our

[39:44] first choice but it is an option.

[39:54] Um moving on to access. So this uh has a

[39:57] few different aspects in it. Um you know

[40:00] there are areas of the EDC JRD that are

[40:04] relatively rural. So um that brings down

[40:07] a few things. Obviously access to the

[40:08] site. you might need to uh invest in

[40:11] some additional roadway improvements or

[40:14] any roadway, but also um then that also

[40:17] takes down the um potential users of the

[40:22] space. So um that's another one um that

[40:25] will kind of have multiple impacts and

[40:26] things leading to it. But um with this

[40:29] list in particular, surrounding

[40:30] conditions and capacity of the roadway

[40:33] um of local or state traffic will

[40:36] support the development um making sure

[40:38] that it's not just you know um perhaps a

[40:41] a grapple road. Um and then proposed

[40:45] location needs or requirements

[40:46] identified in the market analysis. So,

[40:48] like what we were discussing with Rick

[40:50] and his proposed developments or just

[40:53] location to surrounding um residents.

[41:00] We also added um item 30 to this list.

[41:03] Um Darl mentioned that uh the Morph

[41:06] Greenway paths and trail plans could

[41:08] help um pull in some potential shared

[41:10] use path options. And so making sure

[41:12] that there is still connection

[41:13] throughout the surrounding district. Um

[41:16] so making sure that we include that in

[41:19] connectors for shared use paths

[41:34] for access um and tying in community

[41:38] partners. Have there been any thought to

[41:42] connecting with the fire department to

[41:45] ask them

[41:46] If you had it your way, were there any

[41:48] short are there any shortcuts? Can we

[41:50] help with that somehow one way or

[41:52] another? I'm just kind of thinking

[41:53] because I I think that was brought up by

[41:55] a resident that said, "Hey, that

[41:57] » Fire department would love to have a

[41:58] road here. They just can't pay. There's

[42:01] no reason to have a road here, but if

[42:02] that could help, why not?"

[42:04] » Yeah,

[42:06] » Just a thought

[42:08] as well.

[42:09] » Yeah, that's a really great idea.

[42:19] any additional questions with access.

[42:23] So then our final um final is the

[42:26] economic development opportunities and

[42:28] benefits. So this is more about what the

[42:30] proposed development of the surrounding

[42:32] area could be. Um location features are

[42:35] pos uh I'm sorry positive and marketable

[42:37] for events. um local incentives are

[42:40] available for development um potential

[42:42] for cost sharing. So very similar to

[42:44] what you just mentioned, you know,

[42:45] potential cost sharing and extending a

[42:46] roadway. Um but then also development of

[42:49] the proposed site will not reduce future

[42:52] taxable property to prevent um new

[42:55] private development. So, they're similar

[42:57] to what we talked about earlier. Having

[42:58] a site that would be in the middle of an

[43:01] industrial space might not be the best

[43:03] location um context wise, but also then

[43:06] economic development wise for the uh

[43:09] EDJRD

[43:11] um members. So, taking some

[43:13] consideration into that. Obviously, I

[43:15] think that there are plenty of very

[43:19] desirable sites that we are looking at

[43:21] right now. So I don't really see that as

[43:22] an issue, but it is something that we'll

[43:24] consider making sure that the taxable

[43:26] revenue is not taken away from the

[43:27] jurisdictions.

[43:36] We also uh considered the positive and

[43:40] marketable um area. Um,

[43:45] and when we were thinking about this,

[43:47] you know, uh, we talked about the

[43:49] location and using urban decision groups

[43:52] site work, um, and taking that into

[43:54] consideration. And

[43:57] we find that, um, you know, it will

[44:00] likely be positive and marketable for

[44:03] the community no matter where it is

[44:04] likely. So, um, we we felt comfortable

[44:07] with we I think we brought it up maybe

[44:09] one or two points, not um, a large

[44:12] amount, but we felt that this would make

[44:15] it wherever the site is going to be real

[44:18] really would make it more marketable for

[44:20] community use or also just community

[44:23] development.

[44:34] So you're referencing number 32. Is that

[44:36] correct? Facilities location are

[44:39] » Yes.

[44:40] » It's still on mention it went up.

[44:44] » Um

[44:53] » I'll have to go back and look at my

[44:54] notes, but perhaps it's supposed to be a

[44:56] two.

[45:04] Yeah, from my perspective if if if

[45:08] say that one be positive and remarkable

[45:10] is only ranked at one and if it's

[45:13] negative and not marketable and zero

[45:15] that's one point big I think should be

[45:18] quite high from my perspective I think

[45:20] it will with all of it [clears throat]

[45:22] to rank

[45:30] Are there any questions about the

[45:32] criteria that we mentioned um or

[45:35] discussed? Um I think that as far as

[45:38] next steps if uh there is an approval

[45:41] from the board then we will start our

[45:44] review um as quickly as possible um so

[45:47] that we can get it into

[45:49] that so that we can schedule a meeting

[45:51] to review with the EDJR board as well.

[45:55] » Do you need approval tonight to this

[45:58] schedule?

[46:00] Slide eight. Um, I think that that would

[46:05] uh be

[46:08] likely the best. Obviously, we can wait.

[46:10] Um, but that just would push the

[46:11] schedule back. And if it's a discussion

[46:13] that needs to be had offline, then um or

[46:18] just in an executive session with your

[46:19] team, that's that's okay. But if it

[46:21] needs to wait until another board

[46:22] meeting, then obviously it will just

[46:24] impact the schedule.

[46:25] » Correct. Waiting full.

[46:28] » Yeah. all together.

[46:31] I just want to make sure that the other

[46:32] board members here have a chance to kind

[46:34] of sit, dissect, and absorb

[46:38] because there's a lot here. And I guess

[46:40] the one question I also have is these

[46:43] are are good. Then we get sites back,

[46:46] oh, this is what the rain does. We still

[46:48] have the latitude to use our judgment.

[46:51] » Yeah.

[46:51] » Just because it rated high doesn't mean

[46:53] that's that's

[46:54] » Yeah, absolutely.

[47:00] discuss.

[47:04] » Yes.

[47:08] » Yes. So I I was writing down I mean

[47:10] maybe if we change the way it's written.

[47:12] So again maybe at least 10 acres is

[47:15] outside of the flood plane and that way

[47:17] you know you've got

[47:19] » A 90,000 square foot building that you

[47:21] know fits comfortably in the space. um

[47:25] you know maybe that it's so again it

[47:27] sort of and if something comes in that's

[47:29] less than that you know it's scoring low

[47:31] and it's and it's waiting factor I mean

[47:35] I guess it yeah by scoring low the

[47:37] waiting factor doesn't lift it up any

[47:39] but if it if it's at least 10 acres it's

[47:42] outside the flood plane and it meets you

[47:44] know the building footprint issue scores

[47:47] high on that front it gets weighted the

[47:49] court three four whatever the number

[47:50] might be maybe that's a way to at least

[47:52] get keep them moving

[47:54] in the evaluation and then when we get

[47:56] together as a group

[47:57] » We can sort through it if anybody's sort

[47:59] of on the margins.

[48:02] » Yeah. And that's one of the things I'm

[48:04] struggling with is that this is all

[48:05] geared to the site and building. We have

[48:09] two simultaneous paths where we have

[48:11] site building and potentially outside

[48:14] area. So

[48:16] » Just try to see how to balance that in a

[48:19] criteria like this.

[48:22] So if we could change number nine to

[48:25] state whether

[48:30] I think

[48:38] » I'm sorry to what did you say?

[48:43] » I didn't hear what you said.

[48:56] for the flood plane. I I would say so.

[48:59] » I think it is going to hit.

[49:11] » I would say that is reasonable.

[49:19] » That's the hard part. We're setting

[49:20] criteria. We don't I feel like once you

[49:23] see the site now used to go like

[49:29] I'll get

[49:31] sites

[49:36] all

[49:55] explore creative

[49:58] site that meets a whole lot of criteria

[50:03] that might start.

[50:10] So I think this

[50:19] » Five

[50:34] sit back here.

[50:40] They don't come together.

[51:06] Yeah. And as we have your team rank

[51:09] them, I think especially your priorities

[51:11] as a board and what the site is are

[51:14] going to come into play um more than

[51:16] just our like technical expertise. what

[51:18] you want out of out of the building and

[51:20] out of the program is going to be

[51:22] something that's incredibly important

[51:23] and it might change and differ from what

[51:26] our rankings are, but that's why we have

[51:28] you included in those as well.

[51:31] » So, so really this is just a guide to

[51:34] help us think through everything that we

[51:36] want to think. But the the the goal at

[51:38] the end of the day is not to say this

[51:39] scored, you know, a 123 and that was

[51:42] 124. So, we're going with 124.

[51:57] down.

[51:59] So

[52:09] really just

[52:13] Yeah.

[52:37] How long?

[52:56] So we got to go back.

[53:11] This is the criteria.

[53:27] » Thank you.

[53:38] All right. Forward.

[53:39] » So, go ahead.

[53:40] » Yeah, I was gonna say, so we do we do

[53:41] have a motion to approve the criteria.

[53:43] So, maybe what I'm hearing is again,

[53:45] we're going to amend the language in

[53:47] item number three.

[53:50] Uh, you know, to say it I don't know, is

[53:52] it 10 or 15? I don't mean number nine.

[53:56] I'm sorry. Number nine. Number nine.

[53:58] Yeah. Waited three. Sorry. Um, at least

[54:02] you know 10 acres is outside the flood

[54:03] plane. At least 15 acres.

[54:08] » I'd air on the side of 15.

[54:11] » I'm okay with that.

[54:14] » Okay.

[54:16] So then with that change, like I said,

[54:19] there's a motion to basically then

[54:20] accept the criteria, allow them to do

[54:22] their ranking, then we'll come back as a

[54:24] board, see the top, you know, whatever

[54:26] five, three, five, 3, four, five, six,

[54:29] whatever that number looks like. We'll

[54:32] talk about it in an executive session,

[54:34] and we'll come out, I think, with a good

[54:36] sense of which ones we think are top of

[54:37] the list. And then they'll go out and

[54:39] start seeing if there's a way to secure

[54:40] the site.

[54:43] I mean, there's also some site.

[54:46] » They got to fit the site, too. Yeah. I

[54:47] guess we wouldn't secure the site right

[54:49] away. We got to make sure it fit. So,

[54:54] » So is there a motion? Yeah,

[54:55] » I'll make the motion.

[54:57] » All right. Second resolution 05. So,

[55:01] moved by Miss Watson, seconded by Mr.

[55:03] Koy.

[55:07] All right. Miss Miss Watson,

[55:09] » Yes.

[55:09] » Mr. Koy,

[55:10] » Yes.

[55:10] » Miss Greor,

[55:12] » Yes.

[55:13] » Mr. Muzakio,

[55:14] » Yes.

[55:14] » Miss Savannah,

[55:15] » Yes.

[55:16] » Motion approved. 5 Z. Great. Thanks.

[55:21] Thank you.

[55:25] Next item on the agenda. So, we did

[55:28] resolution 202605. Next would be 2026

[55:32] budget update.

[55:34] » Um, I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but

[55:36] can we maybe go back to the meeting

[55:37] minutes?

[55:39] Jody, if you

[55:43] I was not present

[55:48] but said on here the meeting was May

[55:51] 21st on Sunday but I think

[55:59] so that's where earlier

[56:02] Sunday

[56:08] » So Sunday was Sunday was the Sunday the

[56:11] 17th was

[56:12] » Sunday

[56:14] » And then Thursday the 21st

[56:21] » Yeah.

[56:23] » So the date and the mixed up

[56:27] » Think so I think

[56:29] » I just know I had day on 18th Sunday it

[56:33] was setting up

[56:35] Sunday.

[56:38] » Yeah. So, so these

[56:42] » So I think page two of the materials the

[56:45] second line it should say um Thursday

[56:48] May 21st.

[56:49] » Yeah.

[56:54] » Good catch.

[56:57] » Well

[56:57] » Yeah that was all Jody

[57:00] » And then because we had approved the May

[57:02] 17th meeting minutes which is reflected

[57:06] in our minutes. See, I think if we just

[57:07] change Sunday to Thursday, we got it.

[57:10] So, I guess

[57:12] » Oh, I I'm sorry. I see where you are. I

[57:14] was down under the minutes. Yes,

[57:16] Thursday. Got it. Thursday, May 21st.

[57:19] All right. Why don't we uh why don't we

[57:21] reapprove the minutes then with that

[57:23] correction. So, we'll say uh amended

[57:28] minutes.

[57:30] So, we've got two amendments. We've got

[57:32] the the date as in Thursday

[57:37] May 21

[57:40] and we've got then the motion the move

[57:43] and approval of resolution 04 which we

[57:46] get corrected in the first minutes.

[57:52] » So

[57:55] » We have a motion to approve the

[58:00] » I'll second. So moved by Miss Greger,

[58:04] second by Miss Watson.

[58:11] » All right. Miss Greger.

[58:12] » Yes.

[58:13] » Miss Watson.

[58:14] » Yes.

[58:14] » Miss Savvada.

[58:16] » Yes.

[58:16] » Mr. Mazakio.

[58:18] » Yes.

[58:18] » And Mr. Koy.

[58:20] » Yes.

[58:20] » Five years. Motion approved.

[58:24] Great. Thank you.

[58:29] All right. The only other item in the

[58:31] agenda just uh a snapshot of where we

[58:33] are with respect to the budget. So at

[58:36] the last meeting we amended the budget.

[58:38] So you see the amended budget on packet

[58:40] page 19.

[58:43] Um

[58:45] as we talked about um you know we will

[58:48] have to get some funding in place for

[58:50] accounting and audit purposes. We had

[58:53] talked about maybe going back to the

[58:54] jurisdictions and asking for the funds

[58:56] that were not spent in 2025.

[58:59] uh would they be willing to appropriate

[59:01] those moving forward that ended up being

[59:02] a little short of $10,000?

[59:05] Um so the way to kind of think about

[59:07] that um Sunbury would be at 46 46 and a

[59:12] half% of that Berkshire 43.9 Galina at

[59:15] 9.7. I I'll put that together for the

[59:18] next meeting so we know the exact

[59:19] amounts that we're requesting. Um, I I

[59:23] will say that Sunbury has uh already

[59:26] approved an amendment allowing for that

[59:28] additional appropriation. So, so we've

[59:31] at least secured that, but I'll I'll get

[59:33] the exact numbers and bring those back

[59:34] and we'll get that cleaned up. So,

[59:39] other than that, that is it on the on

[59:41] the budget.

[59:59] Next item is information.

[1:00:03] Any discussion?

[1:00:09] Then we go to next meeting before we

[1:00:11] adjourn. Yes.

[1:00:18] So

[1:00:18] » In the schedule you had suggested some

[1:00:20] dates. Sophia, you want to start by

[1:00:22] throwing those out again?

[1:00:23] » Yeah.

[1:00:26] » 21st.

[1:00:34] » I'm sorry. Was the 20th one of them or

[1:00:36] was it the 21st and 22? 21st.

[1:00:43] » All right. So let's see.

[1:00:50] The 21st is a Tuesday.

[1:00:53] » Would we be look since it's probably a

[1:00:55] two-hour meeting, would we be looking to

[1:00:56] start at what six?

[1:01:00] That works.

[1:01:02] » So, I can't be in person on the first

[1:01:04] two, but I could on the second two.

[1:01:08] I could probably do virtual on first two

[1:01:12] for the 21st, 22.

[1:01:15] I would be traveling. So,

[1:01:20] » I can do any of those dates.

[1:01:24] » It would be better for me if we could do

[1:01:26] it on the 29th and 30th. But if more

[1:01:28] people cannot do that,

[1:01:39] » You can do the third. Okay. All four is

[1:01:42] fine.

[1:01:44] That's great. [laughter]

[1:01:46] We'll

[1:01:46] » Accommodate your

[1:01:50] » Go for Thursday 30th

[1:01:55] » At 6 p.m.

[1:02:03] » Yes, that' be good.

[1:02:10] All right, we want to move that back to

[1:02:11] Sunbury then

[1:02:13] » Because I think Sunbury would be next in

[1:02:15] the rotation.

[1:02:22] All right.

[1:02:25] July 30

[1:02:28] 6 p.m. December. And just for planning

[1:02:33] purposes, will we be getting a like a

[1:02:35] packet before that meeting to start

[1:02:37] looking through?

[1:02:38] » Yeah.

[1:02:39] » Okay. That

[1:02:55] » Yeah, that would be ideal.

[1:03:12] Yeah. So, on that, I'll need to I'll

[1:03:14] need to talk to Becky just a little bit

[1:03:16] about the documents um just to make sure

[1:03:19] we can

[1:03:22] protect those a little bit. So, I've got

[1:03:24] a little bit of work to do on that. So,

[1:03:29] Okay,

[1:03:31] » Perfect. And I'll make a motion to

[1:03:34] adjurnn.

[1:03:37] » I'll second.

[1:03:39] » All right. Moved by Mr. Koy, seconded by

[1:03:41] Miss Sabata. Uh, Mr. Koy.

[1:03:44] » Yes.

[1:03:45] » Sabata.

[1:03:45] » Yes.

[1:03:46] » Mr. Mazakio.

[1:03:47] » Yes.

[1:03:48] » Uh, Miss Greger.

[1:03:49] » Yes.

[1:03:50] » And Miss Watson,

[1:03:51] » Yes.

[1:03:52] » Uh, five years. We are adjourned.

[1:03:56] Turn up.

Joint REcreationDistrict

Transcript