[0:00] All

[0:05] right, it's red. We are streaming. >> Okay, we're ready to go.

[0:09] » All right, it is 7:01 p.m. on Monday

[0:17] the 29th of June, 2026. Um, and can I get a call to order of the meeting uh

[0:24] for Eastern Delaware County Joint Rector District? Mr. Henderson, can I get roll

[0:28] call, please? >> Mr. McCoy

[0:29] » here, >> Miss Watson

[0:31] » here, >> Miss Greger

[0:33] » here, >> Miss Savvada

[0:35] » here, >> and Mr. Muzakio

[0:37] » here. >> Five present. We have a quorum.

[0:40] » Perfect. Um, first item on the agenda is 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. >> Yeah, I was going to say I think we have

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

[1:15] » That is true. Uh there was a slight correction on who uh approved motion for

[1:20] resolution 20264. It would be Miss Watson approving. I

[1:25] second it correction.

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

[1:34] » yes. >> Mr. Koy,

[1:35] » yes. >> Miss Sabvada,

[1:37] » can I abstain since I was not present. Thank you,

[1:41] » Mr. Mazakio. >> Yes.

[1:44] » And Miss Greger, >> I abstain. I was not present either.

[1:48] » Well, we probably do need a fourth. >> Well, I think I could do it.

[1:52] Thanks. >> All right. Motion approved. Uh 41.

[1:58] One. >> Next item on the agenda is public

[2:02] comment. Um are there any visitors that would like to speak?

[2:08] » I don't know. Mayor, mayor, why don't you welcome people? Come on up here.

[2:12] » All right. No.

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

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

[2:25] » Uh, unfinished business. There are no stated items. The board

[2:30] have any discussion?

[2:36] Perfect. We'll move along.

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

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

[2:49] » Perfect. >> Yes.

[2:53] Sounds great. >> Great.

[3:03] » Thanks everybody for having us here tonight. Um, as a reminder, my name is

[3:06] Sophia Alonza. I'm the project manager for PUDI Solutions. We've been doing um

[3:11] some of the work on the Eastern Delaware County Joint Rec District Community

[3:15] Center. Um, and so tonight we have a few different topics to talk to you about.

[3:19] Um we'll have MSA and Katie Freeland going over um some of the programming

[3:26] just as a kind of reminder of where we left off back in April, but also showing

[3:30] some new um graphics to help visualize uh what we're what we're showing and

[3:35] then we'll be going through some of the site criteria. So part of our engagement

[3:39] with phase 2 was to do um site selection. So we are going to walk you

[3:44] through that process and hopefully get 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, we we won't be projecting the um slides,

[4:01] but that you do have those in front of you uh in the packet that she'll be

[4:05] walking through both of Yeah, there you go. Great. Thank you.

[4:09] » All right. So, again, Katie Freeland with MSA Design. Um we're just going to

[4:13] give you kind of a quick update of what we have been working on in the

[4:15] background in terms of the program of the building. So again, not just the

[4:19] amenities that are going into the building, things that are proposed. Um

[4:22] the first slide that I will direct you to is the one that says program April

[4:26] 2026 programming diagram. So just as a reminder, that is where we left things

[4:32] off after our series of community engagement sessions. Um throughout that

[4:37] series of workshops, we really focused on getting feedback from the community

[4:40] as well as you all on the types of spaces uh that might be desirable in

[4:45] this future community recreation center. Um and then the diagram was really

[4:49] capturing kind of what what those spaces could be um in in a diagrammatic way. Um

[4:56] we left things off with a building that was approximately 90,000 square feet um

[5:02] with about 10% of expansion that was dashed in on there. Just understanding

[5:06] there there are still many decisions to be made and many things to be validated.

[5:11] At that time we were also considering a potential partner space. Um, so square

[5:16] footage of that really wasn't very well vetted or necessarily discussed, but for

[5:20] just for the sake of the diagram, that was about 25,000 square feet.

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

[5:31] um, ultimately the intention of this is once we get through the site selection

[5:36] criteria, we will then be providing a more developed floor plan and site plan

[5:42] for each of the sites that are under consideration. And the goal of that is

[5:45] really to help you all understand kind of the impact of that site as it means

[5:50] to the building and then the surrounding amenities associated with that. Um as

[5:54] part of that we went ahead and started developing and this is sort of just a

[5:58] test program a test floor plan of what that might look like. So the intention

[6:02] is once some of these sites are under consideration we will then use this kind

[6:07] of footprint modified um to reflect the sites that are being discussed. Um, so

[6:12] in this particular version of a plan and it is starting to look a little bit more

[6:16] like a plan, but please keep in mind this is just sort of a working document

[6:19] and you know is going to will change as we move forward. Um, we are continuing

[6:24] to show a building footprint of about 90,000 square foot. On this particular

[6:28] one, um, we were starting to suggest there might be a mezzanine space. Um,

[6:32] one of the programming elements that was discussed was an elevated running or

[6:37] walking track that might be above the gym space. So in this particular

[6:41] footprint, you know, it started to make sense maybe putting some uh fitness

[6:44] space up there as well. Um this is showing programming rooms, a fitness

[6:48] floor. Um we are starting to diagrammatically show kind of what I

[6:53] would say focus maybe more on the amount of fitness equipment that could fit in a

[6:57] fitness floor of that size, not necessarily the type of equipment. Um

[7:00] this is really just to kind of help you understand scale of the space. Um, so

[7:05] again, this ended up about a 90,000 ft footprint with a 4,000 square ft

[7:11] mezzanine. Um, we are not necessarily building an additional expansion space

[7:15] or that partner space in this diagram, but certainly can do so as we start to

[7:20] test fit some of the sites um, moving forward. In terms of continuing vetting

[7:26] and refinement of the program, um I would ask you as we just continue all of

[7:31] the other discussions and points that we will continue to explore with you

[7:34] throughout this process. Um one of course your ongoing feedback will be

[7:39] considered and put into whatever that developed program will be. So if you

[7:44] have any ideas, questions, considerations, please make sure that

[7:47] you're bringing those up. Um [clears throat] there will be some

[7:50] operational considerations that we will want to make sure the uh programming

[7:55] document kind of follows along with that process. And I will just give you a

[7:58] couple for instances. Um if you uh ultimately decide from an operational

[8:04] standpoint uh you are maybe building out a more robust operational plan um and

[8:09] would like to offer you know a large series of types of fitness classes, art

[8:14] classes, um community interest classes, we might start to suggest that we have

[8:19] more of those kind of multiuse types of spaces reflected in the program. um if

[8:25] you ultimately is starting to lean towards something that is more um

[8:29] streamlined and it's operational and maybe some of those types of flexible

[8:32] spaces aren't as desired, we may pull back some of those types of spaces. Um I

[8:38] know a competition pool has been requested. Um that is something that

[8:43] would start to then have an operational aspect on it. Uh so right now for the

[8:48] diagram we are showing just a 25 m pool. We're not showing a 50 m pool, but

[8:53] certainly um I think there is space in there where something like that could

[8:56] start to layer in. Um just again when you start talking about operation and

[9:02] operating something that could be used more from a competitive swim standpoint,

[9:06] um there is impact on the use of that for your community members. Um does that

[9:10] want to be in the same space as the other aquatics? There's a lot of kind of

[9:14] conversation that we can continue to have about that moving forward. Um but

[9:18] for sort of a base level set as we study the sites this is kind of where we

[9:23] landed um at the end of the the first phase of this engagement um we have

[9:27] taken the liberty to add in some kind of ancillary and accessory support pieces

[9:31] just as we've developed it some office space restrooms storage those types of

[9:36] things that we think would naturally kind of follow along the program that

[9:40] was developed but we have not altered kind of the base set of program

[9:43] substantially from what where we left things off. So, any questions on that

[9:48] before I

[9:53] flip the next one? Okay. And then the last diagram here in your

[9:58] packet is a site diagram. Um, so what we did for this one, and again, you'll see

[10:04] kind of this format translated to the sites that will ultimately be

[10:08] considered. Um, but for the sake of this exercise, we are just showing a generic

[10:13] 7acre box. That's what that dashed blue line is around that. Um, we are showing

[10:18] that building footprint from the previous slide. So that 90,000 square

[10:21] foot building footprint. Um, and then we are showing the associated parking spots

[10:27] for a building of that size sitting on that footprint. So again, for the sake

[10:32] of this, I took Sunbur's [clears throat] um zoning code. They are requiring 200

[10:37] spots for one spot for every 200 square feet of exercise space. So, as we refine

[10:42] the program, you know, that number might shift a little bit just depending on

[10:46] what we're categorizing and what's being provided in terms of exercise space. Um,

[10:50] but for this one, it ended up about 390 spaces. So, you can see that that pretty

[10:55] much fills a 7 acre site. When we get the the associated parking with that,

[11:00] um, certainly there are opportunities. We can start looking at a multi-story

[11:04] building. we can really um be much more selective about what we classify as

[11:09] exercise space and really kind of drill down to what that really means and make

[11:12] sure that we're not overp parking the site. Um but just to get you sort of a

[11:16] base level understanding of how that might look on a on a generic site. Um we

[11:22] thought this might be helpful as you're going through the selection criteria

[11:25] matrix this evening. >> I do have a question. So I know one of

[11:30] the things we talked about needed some additional work was um you know outdoor

[11:33] field space. Do we have any rough ideas of like what like acreage would be we

[11:38] would be looking at? We can provide that. I think one of the

[11:43] things and I think we'll probably talk about it when we get into the site

[11:45] selection. Um I believe it was left with studying the sites seeing what

[11:51] opportunities of sites have for that type of expansion but not necessarily

[11:56] build that in today into this criteria. >> So it might be a little bit of a back

[12:00] and forth. I guess that's not a great answer, but it'll be a little bit back

[12:03] and forth once we get the sites and we understand what they're um what is

[12:07] available and then we can start giving you some idea of how that might lay out.

[12:11] But certainly we could pull together an acreage of kind of a base level outdoor,

[12:16] you know, practice space what that could look like as well.

[12:19] » Yeah. And what you just said was my understanding as well, but I was just

[12:22] trying to gauge in, you know, my mind's eye, you know, if we were to find a site

[12:26] that could accommodate both like what 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. Well, you'll see more of these types of

[12:42] diagrams again moving forward. Um I think once we start applying that to the

[12:46] site, um obviously that conversation will evolve and develop, but if you have

[12:51] any other thoughts about what we've sort of thrown into that base understanding,

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

[13:09] » Um, with the outdoor fields, I do think that, um, so what Katie has said is is

[13:15] where we're leaving off. I I know that internally we've been thinking about the

[13:18] size of Bevelr Park for an outdoor facility, which is about 140 acres. So,

[13:24] um, with the site selection, we we do have it as a consideration for, um, like

[13:30] expansion space, um, for potentially outdoor fields. So, it is something that

[13:34] we're considering, but we're not limiting ourselves to only looking at

[13:38] sites that would accommodate for 140 acres, if that makes sense.

[13:43] » Yeah. And so, when you say 140 acres, is that like all their various zones

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

[13:49] » Yeah. Yes.

[13:54] Um, so I'll go ahead and get started with a little bit of the site evaluation

[13:59] process. So our team over the past few weeks has been working to compile a list

[14:04] of potential sites. So these are both publicly owned. There are some sites

[14:09] that are for sale and then also some additional sites that we're looking at

[14:13] that aren't currently listed for sale but perhaps could be um owned by a

[14:17] community partner. So that's something that we're considering. We have about 15

[14:21] sites right now. Um we've compiled some site profiles for these which include um

[14:27] the size, owner, if they're for sale, what they are for sale acreage wise, um

[14:33] what available utilities are near the site as well. So um we are creating

[14:38] these site profiles for our team but then also for your team um as we will

[14:42] have you kind of uh rank these sites. Um but our team will be going through and

[14:48] at least evaluating likely it'll be more than 10 but um we do say 10 sites right

[14:54] now. Um I think the sites that we have picked out are worth really looking at.

[14:59] So 10 to 15 is what we will be ranking as a project team. The highest ranking

[15:04] sites will be evaluated by the board members. So, we are going to see where

[15:11] the natural break is, but this will likely be five between five and three

[15:15] sites that we will have each member of the EDJRD board ranking. Um, we will end

[15:22] up combining these scores with what we have included to get some top

[15:27] contenders. And so with this, we will then start to do um a process of just

[15:34] reaching out to the owners depending on if it's publicly owned, whether it is

[15:38] private or for sale. So um to reiterate the process, um we will be ranking 10 to

[15:44] 15 sites as a project team. From there, we would like to schedule um a meeting

[15:49] with the EDJRD board, likely um perhaps a two-hour session. And I know that

[15:54] there's been discussion on um what needs to be done. So I know that there has

[15:59] been desire to do a ranking by all of the EDJRD board members. So if we need

[16:04] to do an executive session or if there's some type of committee that we need to

[16:08] form then we're happy to do that. But um I think that it would be worth having

[16:11] all members uh rank the sites. And for this we'll

[16:17] provide you with those site profiles that we are creating. But then also we

[16:21] will be available to answer any questions so that we can move through

[16:24] the rankings together. We think that having everyone in one room would be

[16:28] helpful to really create um a consistency across scoring. So um we

[16:34] wouldn't want you know the mindset to shift a little bit after you take some

[16:38] time to really re-evaluate. So having it in one session with everyone in our team

[16:43] available for questions we think is going to be the best option. That's what

[16:46] we would recommend. I've included um a schedule. I believe

[16:52] this is on slide eight or nine. Um and this is just walking you through our

[16:55] process. So our team is going to take the next two weeks to review these sites

[17:01] and score them. Um and then we would like to meet with you relatively

[17:08] quickly. Um so ideally either the 21st, 22nd, 29th or 30th um would be

[17:16] preferable. I know that sometimes everyone's schedule is busy so if we

[17:19] need to adjust we can we can do that but um just to throw out some dates so that

[17:23] we are staying on a tight timeline. Um and then we would like to have

[17:32] about what is this about three and a half weeks to create a draft program um

[17:36] and a draft recommendation to provide to the board. So we'll be taking all of the

[17:40] combined sites and creating a uh recommendation to provide to you which

[17:45] will um lay out all the rankings where they scored um but then also kind of how

[17:51] to proceed depending on what the site is. So we'll be able to provide some

[17:54] recommendations on um an acquisition or what whatever the mechanism for

[17:59] acquiring a site would be. Um recommendations obviously will depend

[18:05] on the owners. So if it's a public site, perhaps there's just um a land lease,

[18:09] but also if it's um private, perhaps there's option to purchase. So we'll go

[18:13] through what those recommendations are in um a recommendation that we present.

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

[18:27] Okay, if you go to the next slide, we have

[18:31] just um two slides that are covering everything that's on our site evaluate

[18:36] evaluation matrix. You can see what um items are weighted at. So um all of

[18:42] these criteria will be ranked 0 through 10. Um and then obviously the score will

[18:49] be impacted by whatever the weight is. So these are about um weighted 1 through

[18:54] 10. Um I believe the highest that we might have is just an eight right now.

[18:57] But um those are dependent on obviously what is uh more important and for for

[19:02] our team we find that um utilities and um the the site features are some of the

[19:09] more important. So those are heavier heav he heavily weighted. Um you can you

[19:14] can see that throughout the sections, but um I'd like to go section by section

[19:19] and I've included a little bit closer of a screenshot on the following slides

[19:24] just to um see if there are any questions or comments. I'm happy to walk

[19:29] through each of them individually if that would be helpful. We have been

[19:32] working with um Bernie, Todd, and Daryl um during our bi-weekly meetings to

[19:39] discuss these criteria, what they're weighted. Um so we have uh reflected

[19:45] those conversations in this updated drawing. Um

[19:49] » yeah so so if I could say I know slides nine and 10 are a little small but they

[19:54] break out on beginning on slide 11. So just they so each individual section is

[19:59] just a little bit bigger and I think a little bit easier to read. So yeah.

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

[20:14] » Oh, we're just going section by section, not line item by line item.

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

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

[20:21] » Okay. >> Is this the same?

[20:23] » Yeah. >> Yeah, actually the packet. You're right.

[20:26] The packet is easier to read. >> Sorry about that. Makes sense.

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

[20:44] » I have >> I think one of the questions I had and

[20:47] it was one of my comments uh that I had 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 designated as flood plane or wetland. I

[21:03] think for me >> um the building does not want to be at

[21:07] all. >> Yeah.

[21:09] » The the park the the path to worry about

[21:13] » now the field space uh we have it here at one of the elementary schools. Every

[21:18] time it rains it floods. It's kind of tough for soccer and the other sports.

[21:22] So I think a generic statement that the whole field say we go for 150

[21:26] » acres >> I think find some parcels for areas

[21:32] where we have the building and the path. So I think for me it's a little higher

[21:37] like because flood plane introduces a lot of issues building

[21:43] » so I'd rather not sink that money into the foundation.

[21:46] » Yeah. No that's a a valid concern. I think um we there are also I mean

[21:52] remediation techniques that can be done um to for the wetland. Um but if it is

[22:00] um a general consensus that it would rather not be something that the board

[22:05] worries about then we can obviously bring it up higher. I think um you'll

[22:09] notice that some of these are weighted the highest. So the first item, second

[22:13] and third um have a particularly high waiting. That's just because we find

[22:17] that'll be the easiest for the for the um board to acquire. Um and so we do

[22:23] have everything else kind of based off of what we find to be the most important

[22:29] aspects. So, um we could always move that up. I think it would be worth our

[22:34] team taking a look at what else is weighted high if we do adjust.

[22:39] » Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need to make the whole thing generically

[22:43] higher or lower. I I would like to see it broken out,

[22:46] » okay, >> into if it's a seven acres or 12 acres

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

[22:53] » it goes up for me, >> but if it's seven acres,

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

[23:00] » Yeah. >> So, I'd like to see it broken up if

[23:04] possible.

[23:08] » Landed on that call. Yeah, I think I think we ended up moving

[23:13] it up. I I can't remember if we started at a one or two, but the idea was yeah,

[23:17] that it needed to be more heavily weighted. I think because of your

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

[23:25] between how much land, you know, needs to be available for a building for it to

[23:30] be weighted higher. So, I think what you were saying is that so let's let's just

[23:36] go back to kind of our sample, right? We is seven acres kind of the minimum site.

[23:40] Actually, seven acres gets you parking and get you the building. I guess

[23:45] probably your point is if you can get seven acres of land that's out of a

[23:50] flood plane, that's higher. >> If you got 10 acres and seven of it's

[23:55] out of the flood plane, that's good. The other three we can work with.

[23:58] » Yeah. >> So, yeah. and and that I think we were

[24:01] struggling a little bit with how to kind of differentiate the components,

[24:04] » but maybe that's >> maybe we go back and trying to take a

[24:08] little bit of a stab at that. But but we did try to increase the weight correct

[24:12] to kind of to your point. So >> yeah, maybe it's a reference point.

[24:15] Maybe it's seven acres or maybe make it a little bit bigger, not the 10.

[24:19] » Yeah. Or maybe Yeah. So maybe maybe the question maybe it's something like at

[24:22] least you know at least seven acres is outside the flood plane, right? And

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

[24:30] » and we got to think towards expansion if we right now we offer 10% in for

[24:34] expansion we realize we growing >> yeah so maybe it's at least 10 acres

[24:40] » 15

[24:44] be helpful

[24:54] » okay >> I think we talked on the call like item

[24:58] one, two, and three kind of exclusive. So you're only giving points for one of

[25:02] those other

[25:06] » right kind of

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

[25:12] » Correct.

[25:22] » Yeah. And then maybe Miss Watson to your point I Item number four. So the site

[25:27] provides adequate usable area for for the proposed current scope. Again, we're

[25:32] still working through what that scope is,

[25:34] » but the point I mean this is this is weighted pretty high, right? It's

[25:38] basically the land's got to, you know, meet the scope um without being

[25:42] oversized. [cough and clears throat] And at some point as we get closer to the

[25:46] final scoring, you're probably going to have to start weighing in, you know,

[25:50] whether or not it's got some outdoor 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, and I think that's kind of where we've

[26:03] landed that I don't know that we're going to have an exact number of how

[26:06] many how much additional land how much additional land, you know, is adequate,

[26:11] but we'll we know that it needs to be something, right? We I think that's kind

[26:16] of the message that the public has said that it should have some outdoor

[26:19] recreational value. And when we if we get a site that shows

[26:24] 30 acres, that's going to score higher than one that has 12, right?

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

[26:31] » you know, in the long run. And the scope is more outdoor a little more outdoor

[26:35] recreational space. >> But again, we'll we'll score this as a

[26:40] unit as uh as Sophia said. So So there's still be kind of a chance to talk

[26:47] through that. Yeah. >> As it relates to each site. And again,

[26:50] we'll probably end up doing that in executive session so we don't end up,

[26:53] you know, letting the land owner know, you know, where the preference might be.

[27:00] » So with the um with that first site features section, um I think that this

[27:06] really is kind of like setting the whole scene for what site it is. Um, so you

[27:11] know, discussion of property owner, um, what is the usable area, is there

[27:17] significant regrading that needs to be done. These are all things that likely

[27:20] will kind of cost the board a little bit more money. Um, so we're taking into

[27:24] consideration all of those things. >> So 11, where it says existing site

[27:29] features and amenities contribute to the proposed development, are we talking

[27:32] about like utilities or so? Um the existing site features perhaps there is

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

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

[27:46] » be um a positive >> uh feature for the site. So uh items

[27:52] like that >> or but yes utilities as well. Okay.

[28:01] » Are there any additional questions on the site features?

[28:07] for any if so for 12 a site does not require parcel assembly for multiple

[28:12] owners. I mean to the extent that there is a parcel that requires like assembly

[28:17] for multiple owners I mean do we know what the process is for that or will we

[28:22] » Yeah. So um I mean I think that it would really just be um I mean likely there is

[28:26] a zoning um change but then also just working with the local

[28:32] » Okay. jurisdiction.

[28:42] » Um I do think that it was a little bit higher um because now it is just at a

[28:47] three. We um are not anticipating

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

[29:06] Well, the next one, >> right? Uh, with zoning and legal, we did

[29:10] uh take some of these down a little bit, but um we have most of these ranked at

[29:14] number one. Um, zoning allows proposed use. Uh, current zoning provides

[29:19] flexibility and potential uses of the of the property. um no overlay districts um

[29:27] requiring restrictions um and then no additional commission approvals are

[29:32] required. So um you know zoning is something that can be changed relatively

[29:36] easily working with um your local jurisdiction but uh it would save time

[29:42] and funds not having to reszone. So that was the thought process behind that

[29:47] being the highest weighted item um for number 17. I know that um I believe uh

[29:54] Sunberry and Galina just have their own um commissions, but then uh with

[29:59] Berkshire Township, you would have to go through the Delaware County um

[30:03] commission, which might take a little bit more time. So, we we have that one

[30:06] on there specifically just because of the jurisdictional requirements.

[30:16] Any

[30:23] comments on zoning >> for so for the liquor license

[30:27] availability is that for like you know flex space uses and yeah so future use

[30:32] if you ever wanted to host events I mean we haven't really talked about event

[30:35] space or multi-purpose but um flex future expansion anything like

[30:54] I can um move on to site context if there are no more questions regarding

[30:58] that. Um so with the site context, this is really about kind of the use of the

[31:03] site and what the space is. So, um, we have a number of different items on

[31:07] here, but proposed community center would benefit from nearby and existing

[31:12] development, support services, and amenities. Um, I think

[31:18] we we increased this one a little bit, but not by much. Um, it is still

[31:23] weighted at a four, so pretty moderate. I think comparing what is surrounding

[31:28] it, if it's in an industrial space, we would likely consider that site a little

[31:34] bit less than something that was perhaps in a residential area or closer to the

[31:38] schools. So, making sure that the development fits within what is

[31:42] surrounding it um the context of the site, but then also existing

[31:46] adjacencies. um providing uh visibility support civic

[31:51] presence landmarks. So something that's maybe closer located to the uh downtown

[31:56] or the core of one of the EDJRD um members. But then we also have uh

[32:04] community supports the proposed development and location. And so we

[32:07] found through our survey that there were there was an overwhelming amount of

[32:11] support. But I think um depending on where this is located, if it's closer to

[32:16] residential, closer to schools, we found that those uh items or those locations

[32:22] were more highly requested. So, um a 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 be nearby existing development. What

[32:40] about any future upcoming development that is in the works? Are you take that

[32:45] into account as well then or >> Yes. So, uh we are taking that into

[32:49] account especially the work that Rick did. Um the urban decision group sites

[32:53] uh showed a lot of proposed development. So that is definitely something that we

[32:56] will be taking into consideration. Um number 20 is proposed development will

[33:03] positively impact adjacent future development. So I think that we feel

[33:07] that is covered under that item. But um with this grouping of criteria in

[33:14] particular, we'll be heavily relying on Rick's information and what he collected

[33:19] um especially in the maps that he made. So showing where it is located or where

[33:24] potential sites are located in context to proposed development of residential

[33:30] space but also uh residential and then also the other potential or other

[33:36] facilities surrounding the area. >> Okay.

[33:43] » Yeah. And I I would just add a little bit related to that item 31 under

[33:47] economic opportunities and benefits. The proposed development will encourage you

[33:51] know adjacent private development that creates positive economic impact. So so

[33:55] the first one seems to suggest that you know that something is about to happen.

[33:59] The other one maybe suggests that it could encourage that to happen. What's

[34:03] up?

[34:21] just for my understanding context. Uh could you define community partners? I

[34:26] have something in mind. What does it mean to you?

[34:28] » So I think it is subjective that that certainly is um the case but also you

[34:32] know there are a number of new um residential developments going in. So

[34:37] perhaps if there was a desire to swap or donate some land so that there would be

[34:44] a community center nearby. So I think community partner could be the schools,

[34:48] it could be a private developer, it could be um village of Galina or

[34:53] Sunberry um a community partner in that aspect. So I think it's uh just a an

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

[35:27] » [clears throat and cough] >> I know my notes stated quite a bit

[35:29] higher, but I that's why I wanted to clarify what community partner meant,

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

[35:38] because I want this to be a community center. I don't want this to be in the

[35:43] corner of our jurisdiction and nobody's around. I need this to be part of

[35:46] everybody else. >> Yeah.

[35:47] » In heart. >> That's why I think it's important to be

[35:51] cognizant of our community partners, who they are, what their plans are, talk to

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

[36:02] » we we do think that um the community partners is a very important aspect to

[36:07] this development. I think like I mentioned earlier having um utilities

[36:12] and the site context some items in that weighted particularly higher. We wanted

[36:15] to make sure that it was all relative. Um I think that with um community

[36:20] support of the development but then also um we have number 18 rated relatively

[36:26] weighted weighted relatively high. Um we think that these are going to positively

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

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

[36:45] » Yeah. >> Look at it as a whole.

[36:51] » Yeah.

[36:58] » Great. >> Um so utilities, both of these are rated

[37:03] pretty highly. We only have two items. Um, we find that it can be like

[37:08] relatively subjective when you're reviewing utilities and we have had

[37:11] enough experience with projects where utilities are either not available on

[37:15] the site or uh located right relatively far away. And so we find that these are

[37:20] two very important um aspects when considering a site. So, um, if they're

[37:25] not already on the site or very closely adjacent, we find that, um, 500 ft is a

[37:31] relatively acceptable distance, um, just based on previous experience for how

[37:36] much it would be to extend a utility, um, along with any tapping capacity fees

[37:40] usually. So, if it is not adjacent or on the site itself, we still have an

[37:45] opportunity to provide some points rather than just saying they're there

[37:49] are no utilities available on the site. So if they're not on the site directly

[37:54] um they should be within 500 ft and you know very similarly say three utilities

[38:01] are available there's water sewer electric but there's no um power or I

[38:05] mean I'm sorry you know there are some available utilities but they're not all

[38:10] available then you could also rank that second option um with that as well and

[38:16] the profiles that we'll provide to you um will have at least some information

[38:20] regarding starting utilities um and what is available.

[38:24] So, you won't have to find find that out on your own. We'll we'll figure that

[38:28] out. >> Yeah. I've been told several times that

[38:32] sewer is the name of the game you're out here. So,

[38:35] » yeah, >> that to me ranks a lot higher other

[38:38] ones. >> Yes. Yeah. Um

[38:40] » that out. >> Yeah, we we um have had a few projects

[38:44] up in this area that utilities are not available. Um, and you'll find out

[38:49] either a little bit later than you would like to. So, we're making sure that this

[38:52] is definitely a priority when we're reviewing these sites.

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

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

[39:05] » Yeah. >> And in the process, they got soup. So,

[39:08] that's big s. So, that's always another option to explore it. But

[39:13] » so they um I'm the project manager for that as well. Um and we had started with

[39:20] septic and then it was proving to be a little bit difficult to find a septic

[39:24] tank that is of that size that you would need for a facility that size. Um it is

[39:28] definitely possible but um it is just a more expensive option.

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

[39:34] half. >> Yeah. There are additional um facilities

[39:37] that you have to build too um when you do septic. So Okay. Um it is it is

[39:42] always an option. It would not be our first choice but it is an option.

[39:54] Um moving on to access. So this uh has a few different aspects in it. Um you know

[40:00] there are areas of the EDC JRD that are relatively rural. So um that brings down

[40:07] a few things. Obviously access to the site. you might need to uh invest in

[40:11] some additional roadway improvements or any roadway, but also um then that also

[40:17] takes down the um potential users of the space. So um that's another one um that

[40:25] will kind of have multiple impacts and things leading to it. But um with this

[40:29] list in particular, surrounding conditions and capacity of the roadway

[40:33] um of local or state traffic will support the development um making sure

[40:38] that it's not just you know um perhaps a a grapple road. Um and then proposed

[40:45] location needs or requirements identified in the market analysis. So,

[40:48] like what we were discussing with Rick and his proposed developments or just

[40:53] location to surrounding um residents.

[41:00] We also added um item 30 to this list. Um Darl mentioned that uh the Morph

[41:06] Greenway paths and trail plans could help um pull in some potential shared

[41:10] use path options. And so making sure that there is still connection

[41:13] throughout the surrounding district. Um so making sure that we include that in

[41:19] connectors for shared use paths

[41:34] for access um and tying in community partners. Have there been any thought to

[41:42] connecting with the fire department to ask them

[41:46] If you had it your way, were there any short are there any shortcuts? Can we

[41:50] help with that somehow one way or another? I'm just kind of thinking

[41:53] because I I think that was brought up by a resident that said, "Hey, that

[41:57] » fire department would love to have a road here. They just can't pay. There's

[42:01] no reason to have a road here, but if that could help, why not?"

[42:04] » Yeah, >> just a thought

[42:08] as well. >> Yeah, that's a really great idea.

[42:19] any additional questions with access. So then our final um final is the

[42:26] economic development opportunities and benefits. So this is more about what the

[42:30] proposed development of the surrounding area could be. Um location features are

[42:35] pos uh I'm sorry positive and marketable for events. um local incentives are

[42:40] available for development um potential for cost sharing. So very similar to

[42:44] what you just mentioned, you know, potential cost sharing and extending a

[42:46] roadway. Um but then also development of the proposed site will not reduce future

[42:52] taxable property to prevent um new private development. So, they're similar

[42:57] to what we talked about earlier. Having a site that would be in the middle of an

[43:01] industrial space might not be the best location um context wise, but also then

[43:06] economic development wise for the uh EDJRD

[43:11] um members. So, taking some consideration into that. Obviously, I

[43:15] think that there are plenty of very desirable sites that we are looking at

[43:21] right now. So I don't really see that as an issue, but it is something that we'll

[43:24] consider making sure that the taxable revenue is not taken away from the

[43:27] jurisdictions.

[43:36] We also uh considered the positive and marketable um area. Um,

[43:45] and when we were thinking about this, you know, uh, we talked about the

[43:49] location and using urban decision groups site work, um, and taking that into

[43:54] consideration. And we find that, um, you know, it will

[44:00] likely be positive and marketable for the community no matter where it is

[44:04] likely. So, um, we we felt comfortable with we I think we brought it up maybe

[44:09] one or two points, not um, a large amount, but we felt that this would make

[44:15] it wherever the site is going to be real really would make it more marketable for

[44:20] community use or also just community development.

[44:34] So you're referencing number 32. Is that correct? Facilities location are

[44:39] » Yes. >> It's still on mention it went up.

[44:44] » Um

[44:53] » I'll have to go back and look at my notes, but perhaps it's supposed to be a

[44:56] two.

[45:04] Yeah, from my perspective if if if say that one be positive and remarkable

[45:10] is only ranked at one and if it's negative and not marketable and zero

[45:15] that's one point big I think should be quite high from my perspective I think

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

[45:30] Are there any questions about the criteria that we mentioned um or

[45:35] discussed? Um I think that as far as next steps if uh there is an approval

[45:41] from the board then we will start our review um as quickly as possible um so

[45:47] that we can get it into that so that we can schedule a meeting

[45:51] to review with the EDJR board as well. >> Do you need approval tonight to this

[45:58] schedule? Slide eight. Um, I think that that would

[46:05] uh be likely the best. Obviously, we can wait.

[46:10] Um, but that just would push the schedule back. And if it's a discussion

[46:13] that needs to be had offline, then um or just in an executive session with your

[46:19] team, that's that's okay. But if it needs to wait until another board

[46:22] meeting, then obviously it will just impact the schedule.

[46:25] » Correct. Waiting full. >> Yeah. all together.

[46:31] I just want to make sure that the other board members here have a chance to kind

[46:34] of sit, dissect, and absorb because there's a lot here. And I guess

[46:40] the one question I also have is these are are good. Then we get sites back,

[46:46] oh, this is what the rain does. We still have the latitude to use our judgment.

[46:51] » Yeah. >> Just because it rated high doesn't mean

[46:53] that's that's >> Yeah, absolutely.

[47:00] discuss.

[47:04] » Yes.

[47:08] » Yes. So I I was writing down I mean maybe if we change the way it's written.

[47:12] So again maybe at least 10 acres is outside of the flood plane and that way

[47:17] you know you've got >> a 90,000 square foot building that you

[47:21] know fits comfortably in the space. um you know maybe that it's so again it

[47:27] sort of and if something comes in that's less than that you know it's scoring low

[47:31] and it's and it's waiting factor I mean I guess it yeah by scoring low the

[47:37] waiting factor doesn't lift it up any but if it if it's at least 10 acres it's

[47:42] outside the flood plane and it meets you know the building footprint issue scores

[47:47] high on that front it gets weighted the court three four whatever the number

[47:50] might be maybe that's a way to at least get keep them moving

[47:54] in the evaluation and then when we get together as a group

[47:57] » we can sort through it if anybody's sort of on the margins.

[48:02] » Yeah. And that's one of the things I'm struggling with is that this is all

[48:05] geared to the site and building. We have two simultaneous paths where we have

[48:11] site building and potentially outside area. So

[48:16] » just try to see how to balance that in a criteria like this.

[48:22] So if we could change number nine to 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. >> 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 criteria. We don't I feel like once you

[49:23] see the site now used to go like

[49:29] I'll get sites

[49:36] all

[49:55] explore creative 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 them, I think especially your priorities

[51:11] as a board and what the site is are going to come into play um more than

[51:16] just our like technical expertise. what you want out of out of the building and

[51:20] out of the program is going to be something that's incredibly important

[51:23] and it might change and differ from what our rankings are, but that's why we have

[51:28] you included in those as well. >> So, so really this is just a guide to

[51:34] help us think through everything that we want to think. But the the the goal at

[51:38] the end of the day is not to say this scored, you know, a 123 and that was

[51:42] 124. So, we're going with 124.

[51:57] down. 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. >> So, go ahead.

[53:40] » Yeah, I was gonna say, so we do we do have a motion to approve the criteria.

[53:43] So, maybe what I'm hearing is again, we're going to amend the language in

[53:47] item number three. Uh, you know, to say it I don't know, is

[53:52] it 10 or 15? I don't mean number nine. I'm sorry. Number nine. Number nine.

[53:58] Yeah. Waited three. Sorry. Um, at least 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. >> I'm okay with that.

[54:14] » Okay. So then with that change, like I said,

[54:19] there's a motion to basically then accept the criteria, allow them to do

[54:22] their ranking, then we'll come back as a board, see the top, you know, whatever

[54:26] five, three, five, 3, four, five, six, whatever that number looks like. We'll

[54:32] talk about it in an executive session, and we'll come out, I think, with a good

[54:36] sense of which ones we think are top of the list. And then they'll go out and

[54:39] start seeing if there's a way to secure the site.

[54:43] I mean, there's also some site. >> They got to fit the site, too. Yeah. I

[54:47] guess we wouldn't secure the site right away. We got to make sure it fit. So,

[54:54] » so is there a motion? Yeah, >> I'll make the motion.

[54:57] » All right. Second resolution 05. So, moved by Miss Watson, seconded by Mr.

[55:03] Koy.

[55:07] All right. Miss Miss Watson, >> yes.

[55:09] » Mr. Koy, >> yes.

[55:10] » Miss Greor, >> yes.

[55:13] » Mr. Muzakio, >> yes.

[55:14] » Miss Savannah, >> yes.

[55:16] » Motion approved. 5 Z. Great. Thanks. Thank you.

[55:25] Next item on the agenda. So, we did resolution 202605. Next would be 2026

[55:32] budget update. >> Um, I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but

[55:36] can we maybe go back to the meeting minutes?

[55:39] Jody, if you

[55:43] I was not present

[55:48] but said on here the meeting was May 21st on Sunday but I think

[55:59] so that's where earlier Sunday

[56:08] » so Sunday was Sunday was the Sunday the 17th was

[56:12] » Sunday >> and then Thursday the 21st

[56:21] » Yeah. >> So the date and the mixed up

[56:27] » think so I think >> I just know I had day on 18th Sunday it

[56:33] was setting up Sunday.

[56:38] » Yeah. So, so these

[56:42] » so I think page two of the materials the second line it should say um Thursday

[56:48] May 21st. >> Yeah.

[56:54] » Good catch. >> Well

[56:57] » yeah that was all Jody >> and then because we had approved the May

[57:02] 17th meeting minutes which is reflected in our minutes. See, I think if we just

[57:07] change Sunday to Thursday, we got it. So, I guess

[57:12] » Oh, I I'm sorry. I see where you are. I was down under the minutes. Yes,

[57:16] Thursday. Got it. Thursday, May 21st. All right. Why don't we uh why don't we

[57:21] reapprove the minutes then with that correction. So, we'll say uh amended

[57:28] minutes. So, we've got two amendments. We've got

[57:32] the the date as in Thursday May 21

[57:40] and we've got then the motion the move and approval of resolution 04 which we

[57:46] get corrected in the first minutes.

[57:52] » So >> we have a motion to approve the

[58:00] » I'll second. So moved by Miss Greger, second by Miss Watson.

[58:11] » All right. Miss Greger. >> Yes.

[58:13] » Miss Watson. >> Yes.

[58:14] » Miss Savvada. >> Yes.

[58:16] » Mr. Mazakio. >> Yes.

[58:18] » And Mr. Koy. >> Yes.

[58:20] » Five years. Motion approved.

[58:24] Great. Thank you.

[58:29] All right. The only other item in the agenda just uh a snapshot of where we

[58:33] are with respect to the budget. So at the last meeting we amended the budget.

[58:38] So you see the amended budget on packet page 19.

[58:43] Um as we talked about um you know we will

[58:48] have to get some funding in place for accounting and audit purposes. We had

[58:53] talked about maybe going back to the jurisdictions and asking for the funds

[58:56] that were not spent in 2025. uh would they be willing to appropriate

[59:01] those moving forward that ended up being a little short of $10,000?

[59:05] Um so the way to kind of think about that um Sunbury would be at 46 46 and a

[59:12] half% of that Berkshire 43.9 Galina at 9.7. I I'll put that together for the

[59:18] next meeting so we know the exact amounts that we're requesting. Um, I I

[59:23] will say that Sunbury has uh already approved an amendment allowing for that

[59:28] additional appropriation. So, so we've at least secured that, but I'll I'll get

[59:33] the exact numbers and bring those back and we'll get that cleaned up. So,

[59:39] other than that, that is it on the on the budget.

[59:59] Next item is information. Any discussion?

[1:00:09] Then we go to next meeting before we adjourn. Yes.

[1:00:18] So >> in the schedule you had suggested some

[1:00:20] dates. Sophia, you want to start by 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 was it the 21st and 22? 21st.

[1:00:43] » All right. So let's see.

[1:00:50] The 21st is a Tuesday. >> Would we be look since it's probably a

[1:00:55] two-hour meeting, would we be looking to start at what six?

[1:01:00] That works. >> So, I can't be in person on the first

[1:01:04] two, but I could on the second two. I could probably do virtual on first two

[1:01:12] for the 21st, 22. 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 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 fine.

[1:01:44] That's great. [laughter] 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 Sunbury then

[1:02:13] » because I think Sunbury would be next in the rotation.

[1:02:22] All right.

[1:02:25] July 30 6 p.m. December. And just for planning

[1:02:33] purposes, will we be getting a like a packet before that meeting to start

[1:02:37] looking through? >> 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 need to talk to Becky just a little bit

[1:03:16] about the documents um just to make sure we can

[1:03:22] protect those a little bit. So, I've got a little bit of work to do on that. So,

[1:03:29] Okay, >> perfect. And I'll make a motion to

[1:03:34] adjurnn. >> I'll second.

[1:03:39] » All right. Moved by Mr. Koy, seconded by Miss Sabata. Uh, Mr. Koy.

[1:03:44] » Yes. >> Sabata.

[1:03:45] » Yes. >> Mr. Mazakio.

[1:03:47] » Yes. >> Uh, Miss Greger.

[1:03:49] » Yes. >> And Miss Watson,

[1:03:51] » yes. >> Uh, five years. We are adjourned.

[1:03:56] Turn up.

Joint REcreationDistrict

Transcript