All
right, it's red. We are streaming. >> Okay, we're ready to go.
» All right, it is 7:01 p.m. on Monday
the 29th of June, 2026. Um, and can I get a call to order of the meeting uh
for Eastern Delaware County Joint Rector District? Mr. Henderson, can I get roll
call, please? >> Mr. McCoy
» here, >> Miss Watson
» here, >> Miss Greger
» here, >> Miss Savvada
» here, >> and Mr. Muzakio
» here. >> Five present. We have a quorum.
» Perfect. Um, first item on the agenda is the meeting minutes from May 21st, 2026.
Does the board have any discussion?
I'll I'll second that.
» All right. Moved in and seconded. >> Yeah, I was going to say I think we have
an a correction we want to make. >> Correct.
» That is true. Uh there was a slight correction on who uh approved motion for
resolution 20264. It would be Miss Watson approving. I
second it correction.
» All right. So with that correction, uh, Miss Watson,
» yes. >> Mr. Koy,
» yes. >> Miss Sabvada,
» can I abstain since I was not present. Thank you,
» Mr. Mazakio. >> Yes.
» And Miss Greger, >> I abstain. I was not present either.
» Well, we probably do need a fourth. >> Well, I think I could do it.
Thanks. >> All right. Motion approved. Uh 41.
One. >> Next item on the agenda is public
comment. Um are there any visitors that would like to speak?
» I don't know. Mayor, mayor, why don't you welcome people? Come on up here.
» All right. No.
You gave this nice pen. Tell them about the pen.
All right, fair enough. We'll move on. >> All right.
» Uh, unfinished business. There are no stated items. The board
have any discussion?
Perfect. We'll move along.
Uh, new business. And I think there's a site change um
program and site layout updates. Is that correct?
» Perfect. >> Yes.
Sounds great. >> Great.
» Thanks everybody for having us here tonight. Um, as a reminder, my name is
Sophia Alonza. I'm the project manager for PUDI Solutions. We've been doing um
some of the work on the Eastern Delaware County Joint Rec District Community
Center. Um, and so tonight we have a few different topics to talk to you about.
Um we'll have MSA and Katie Freeland going over um some of the programming
just as a kind of reminder of where we left off back in April, but also showing
some new um graphics to help visualize uh what we're what we're showing and
then we'll be going through some of the site criteria. So part of our engagement
with phase 2 was to do um site selection. So we are going to walk you
through that process and hopefully get an approval for the criteria. So, I'll
pass it off to Katie.
» So, again, as a reminder to the board, we we won't be projecting the um slides,
but that you do have those in front of you uh in the packet that she'll be
walking through both of Yeah, there you go. Great. Thank you.
» All right. So, again, Katie Freeland with MSA Design. Um we're just going to
give you kind of a quick update of what we have been working on in the
background in terms of the program of the building. So again, not just the
amenities that are going into the building, things that are proposed. Um
the first slide that I will direct you to is the one that says program April
2026 programming diagram. So just as a reminder, that is where we left things
off after our series of community engagement sessions. Um throughout that
series of workshops, we really focused on getting feedback from the community
as well as you all on the types of spaces uh that might be desirable in
this future community recreation center. Um and then the diagram was really
capturing kind of what what those spaces could be um in in a diagrammatic way. Um
we left things off with a building that was approximately 90,000 square feet um
with about 10% of expansion that was dashed in on there. Just understanding
there there are still many decisions to be made and many things to be validated.
At that time we were also considering a potential partner space. Um, so square
footage of that really wasn't very well vetted or necessarily discussed, but for
just for the sake of the diagram, that was about 25,000 square feet.
So, if you go to the next program diagram,
um, ultimately the intention of this is once we get through the site selection
criteria, we will then be providing a more developed floor plan and site plan
for each of the sites that are under consideration. And the goal of that is
really to help you all understand kind of the impact of that site as it means
to the building and then the surrounding amenities associated with that. Um as
part of that we went ahead and started developing and this is sort of just a
test program a test floor plan of what that might look like. So the intention
is once some of these sites are under consideration we will then use this kind
of footprint modified um to reflect the sites that are being discussed. Um, so
in this particular version of a plan and it is starting to look a little bit more
like a plan, but please keep in mind this is just sort of a working document
and you know is going to will change as we move forward. Um, we are continuing
to show a building footprint of about 90,000 square foot. On this particular
one, um, we were starting to suggest there might be a mezzanine space. Um,
one of the programming elements that was discussed was an elevated running or
walking track that might be above the gym space. So in this particular
footprint, you know, it started to make sense maybe putting some uh fitness
space up there as well. Um this is showing programming rooms, a fitness
floor. Um we are starting to diagrammatically show kind of what I
would say focus maybe more on the amount of fitness equipment that could fit in a
fitness floor of that size, not necessarily the type of equipment. Um
this is really just to kind of help you understand scale of the space. Um, so
again, this ended up about a 90,000 ft footprint with a 4,000 square ft
mezzanine. Um, we are not necessarily building an additional expansion space
or that partner space in this diagram, but certainly can do so as we start to
test fit some of the sites um, moving forward. In terms of continuing vetting
and refinement of the program, um I would ask you as we just continue all of
the other discussions and points that we will continue to explore with you
throughout this process. Um one of course your ongoing feedback will be
considered and put into whatever that developed program will be. So if you
have any ideas, questions, considerations, please make sure that
you're bringing those up. Um [clears throat] there will be some
operational considerations that we will want to make sure the uh programming
document kind of follows along with that process. And I will just give you a
couple for instances. Um if you uh ultimately decide from an operational
standpoint uh you are maybe building out a more robust operational plan um and
would like to offer you know a large series of types of fitness classes, art
classes, um community interest classes, we might start to suggest that we have
more of those kind of multiuse types of spaces reflected in the program. um if
you ultimately is starting to lean towards something that is more um
streamlined and it's operational and maybe some of those types of flexible
spaces aren't as desired, we may pull back some of those types of spaces. Um I
know a competition pool has been requested. Um that is something that
would start to then have an operational aspect on it. Uh so right now for the
diagram we are showing just a 25 m pool. We're not showing a 50 m pool, but
certainly um I think there is space in there where something like that could
start to layer in. Um just again when you start talking about operation and
operating something that could be used more from a competitive swim standpoint,
um there is impact on the use of that for your community members. Um does that
want to be in the same space as the other aquatics? There's a lot of kind of
conversation that we can continue to have about that moving forward. Um but
for sort of a base level set as we study the sites this is kind of where we
landed um at the end of the the first phase of this engagement um we have
taken the liberty to add in some kind of ancillary and accessory support pieces
just as we've developed it some office space restrooms storage those types of
things that we think would naturally kind of follow along the program that
was developed but we have not altered kind of the base set of program
substantially from what where we left things off. So, any questions on that
before I
flip the next one? Okay. And then the last diagram here in your
packet is a site diagram. Um, so what we did for this one, and again, you'll see
kind of this format translated to the sites that will ultimately be
considered. Um, but for the sake of this exercise, we are just showing a generic
7acre box. That's what that dashed blue line is around that. Um, we are showing
that building footprint from the previous slide. So that 90,000 square
foot building footprint. Um, and then we are showing the associated parking spots
for a building of that size sitting on that footprint. So again, for the sake
of this, I took Sunbur's [clears throat] um zoning code. They are requiring 200
spots for one spot for every 200 square feet of exercise space. So, as we refine
the program, you know, that number might shift a little bit just depending on
what we're categorizing and what's being provided in terms of exercise space. Um,
but for this one, it ended up about 390 spaces. So, you can see that that pretty
much fills a 7 acre site. When we get the the associated parking with that,
um, certainly there are opportunities. We can start looking at a multi-story
building. we can really um be much more selective about what we classify as
exercise space and really kind of drill down to what that really means and make
sure that we're not overp parking the site. Um but just to get you sort of a
base level understanding of how that might look on a on a generic site. Um we
thought this might be helpful as you're going through the selection criteria
matrix this evening. >> I do have a question. So I know one of
the things we talked about needed some additional work was um you know outdoor
field space. Do we have any rough ideas of like what like acreage would be we
would be looking at? We can provide that. I think one of the
things and I think we'll probably talk about it when we get into the site
selection. Um I believe it was left with studying the sites seeing what
opportunities of sites have for that type of expansion but not necessarily
build that in today into this criteria. >> So it might be a little bit of a back
and forth. I guess that's not a great answer, but it'll be a little bit back
and forth once we get the sites and we understand what they're um what is
available and then we can start giving you some idea of how that might lay out.
But certainly we could pull together an acreage of kind of a base level outdoor,
you know, practice space what that could look like as well.
» Yeah. And what you just said was my understanding as well, but I was just
trying to gauge in, you know, my mind's eye, you know, if we were to find a site
that could accommodate both like what rough acreage would look like. But I
understand what you're saying.
[snorts]
Any other questions on that? All right. Well, you'll see more of these types of
diagrams again moving forward. Um I think once we start applying that to the
site, um obviously that conversation will evolve and develop, but if you have
any other thoughts about what we've sort of thrown into that base understanding,
please let us know. Um thank you. Thank you.
» Um, with the outdoor fields, I do think that, um, so what Katie has said is is
where we're leaving off. I I know that internally we've been thinking about the
size of Bevelr Park for an outdoor facility, which is about 140 acres. So,
um, with the site selection, we we do have it as a consideration for, um, like
expansion space, um, for potentially outdoor fields. So, it is something that
we're considering, but we're not limiting ourselves to only looking at
sites that would accommodate for 140 acres, if that makes sense.
» Yeah. And so, when you say 140 acres, is that like all their various zones
because they have like the yellow zone and Okay.
» Yeah. Yes.
Um, so I'll go ahead and get started with a little bit of the site evaluation
process. So our team over the past few weeks has been working to compile a list
of potential sites. So these are both publicly owned. There are some sites
that are for sale and then also some additional sites that we're looking at
that aren't currently listed for sale but perhaps could be um owned by a
community partner. So that's something that we're considering. We have about 15
sites right now. Um we've compiled some site profiles for these which include um
the size, owner, if they're for sale, what they are for sale acreage wise, um
what available utilities are near the site as well. So um we are creating
these site profiles for our team but then also for your team um as we will
have you kind of uh rank these sites. Um but our team will be going through and
at least evaluating likely it'll be more than 10 but um we do say 10 sites right
now. Um I think the sites that we have picked out are worth really looking at.
So 10 to 15 is what we will be ranking as a project team. The highest ranking
sites will be evaluated by the board members. So, we are going to see where
the natural break is, but this will likely be five between five and three
sites that we will have each member of the EDJRD board ranking. Um, we will end
up combining these scores with what we have included to get some top
contenders. And so with this, we will then start to do um a process of just
reaching out to the owners depending on if it's publicly owned, whether it is
private or for sale. So um to reiterate the process, um we will be ranking 10 to
15 sites as a project team. From there, we would like to schedule um a meeting
with the EDJRD board, likely um perhaps a two-hour session. And I know that
there's been discussion on um what needs to be done. So I know that there has
been desire to do a ranking by all of the EDJRD board members. So if we need
to do an executive session or if there's some type of committee that we need to
form then we're happy to do that. But um I think that it would be worth having
all members uh rank the sites. And for this we'll
provide you with those site profiles that we are creating. But then also we
will be available to answer any questions so that we can move through
the rankings together. We think that having everyone in one room would be
helpful to really create um a consistency across scoring. So um we
wouldn't want you know the mindset to shift a little bit after you take some
time to really re-evaluate. So having it in one session with everyone in our team
available for questions we think is going to be the best option. That's what
we would recommend. I've included um a schedule. I believe
this is on slide eight or nine. Um and this is just walking you through our
process. So our team is going to take the next two weeks to review these sites
and score them. Um and then we would like to meet with you relatively
quickly. Um so ideally either the 21st, 22nd, 29th or 30th um would be
preferable. I know that sometimes everyone's schedule is busy so if we
need to adjust we can we can do that but um just to throw out some dates so that
we are staying on a tight timeline. Um and then we would like to have
about what is this about three and a half weeks to create a draft program um
and a draft recommendation to provide to the board. So we'll be taking all of the
combined sites and creating a uh recommendation to provide to you which
will um lay out all the rankings where they scored um but then also kind of how
to proceed depending on what the site is. So we'll be able to provide some
recommendations on um an acquisition or what whatever the mechanism for
acquiring a site would be. Um recommendations obviously will depend
on the owners. So if it's a public site, perhaps there's just um a land lease,
but also if it's um private, perhaps there's option to purchase. So we'll go
through what those recommendations are in um a recommendation that we present.
Are there any questions on the schedule or the process?
Okay, if you go to the next slide, we have
just um two slides that are covering everything that's on our site evaluate
evaluation matrix. You can see what um items are weighted at. So um all of
these criteria will be ranked 0 through 10. Um and then obviously the score will
be impacted by whatever the weight is. So these are about um weighted 1 through
10. Um I believe the highest that we might have is just an eight right now.
But um those are dependent on obviously what is uh more important and for for
our team we find that um utilities and um the the site features are some of the
more important. So those are heavier heav he heavily weighted. Um you can you
can see that throughout the sections, but um I'd like to go section by section
and I've included a little bit closer of a screenshot on the following slides
just to um see if there are any questions or comments. I'm happy to walk
through each of them individually if that would be helpful. We have been
working with um Bernie, Todd, and Daryl um during our bi-weekly meetings to
discuss these criteria, what they're weighted. Um so we have uh reflected
those conversations in this updated drawing. Um
» yeah so so if I could say I know slides nine and 10 are a little small but they
break out on beginning on slide 11. So just they so each individual section is
just a little bit bigger and I think a little bit easier to read. So yeah.
Are there any questions on the site features?
» Oh, we're just going section by section, not line item by line item.
» If if that's what you would prefer, happy to. Yeah,
» it's hard to read this. I know I have it here.
» Okay. >> Is this the same?
» Yeah. >> Yeah, actually the packet. You're right.
The packet is easier to read. >> Sorry about that. Makes sense.
So yeah, on packet page five it begins.
» I have >> I think one of the questions I had and
it was one of my comments uh that I had I wasn't able to make the meeting but um
hopefully it made sense. Number
nine on the packet. Uh site is not designated as flood plane or wetland. I
think for me >> um the building does not want to be at
all. >> Yeah.
» The the park the the path to worry about
» now the field space uh we have it here at one of the elementary schools. Every
time it rains it floods. It's kind of tough for soccer and the other sports.
So I think a generic statement that the whole field say we go for 150
» acres >> I think find some parcels for areas
where we have the building and the path. So I think for me it's a little higher
like because flood plane introduces a lot of issues building
» so I'd rather not sink that money into the foundation.
» Yeah. No that's a a valid concern. I think um we there are also I mean
remediation techniques that can be done um to for the wetland. Um but if it is
um a general consensus that it would rather not be something that the board
worries about then we can obviously bring it up higher. I think um you'll
notice that some of these are weighted the highest. So the first item, second
and third um have a particularly high waiting. That's just because we find
that'll be the easiest for the for the um board to acquire. Um and so we do
have everything else kind of based off of what we find to be the most important
aspects. So, um we could always move that up. I think it would be worth our
team taking a look at what else is weighted high if we do adjust.
» Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need to make the whole thing generically
higher or lower. I I would like to see it broken out,
» okay, >> into if it's a seven acres or 12 acres
and small lot and it's not in a flood plane,
» it goes up for me, >> but if it's seven acres,
it's not really viable for walking paths.
» Yeah. >> So, I'd like to see it broken up if
possible.
» Landed on that call. Yeah, I think I think we ended up moving
it up. I I can't remember if we started at a one or two, but the idea was yeah,
that it needed to be more heavily weighted. I think because of your
comments, Bernie, what we didn't do is we didn't we we didn't differentiate
between how much land, you know, needs to be available for a building for it to
be weighted higher. So, I think what you were saying is that so let's let's just
go back to kind of our sample, right? We is seven acres kind of the minimum site.
Actually, seven acres gets you parking and get you the building. I guess
probably your point is if you can get seven acres of land that's out of a
flood plane, that's higher. >> If you got 10 acres and seven of it's
out of the flood plane, that's good. The other three we can work with.
» Yeah. >> So, yeah. and and that I think we were
struggling a little bit with how to kind of differentiate the components,
» but maybe that's >> maybe we go back and trying to take a
little bit of a stab at that. But but we did try to increase the weight correct
to kind of to your point. So >> yeah, maybe it's a reference point.
Maybe it's seven acres or maybe make it a little bit bigger, not the 10.
» Yeah. Or maybe Yeah. So maybe maybe the question maybe it's something like at
least you know at least seven acres is outside the flood plane, right? And
again that's if so that's a again maybe that's a five
» and we got to think towards expansion if we right now we offer 10% in for
expansion we realize we growing >> yeah so maybe it's at least 10 acres
» 15
be helpful
» okay >> I think we talked on the call like item
one, two, and three kind of exclusive. So you're only giving points for one of
those other
» right kind of
» unique like that. You're only getting points.
» Correct.
» Yeah. And then maybe Miss Watson to your point I Item number four. So the site
provides adequate usable area for for the proposed current scope. Again, we're
still working through what that scope is,
» but the point I mean this is this is weighted pretty high, right? It's
basically the land's got to, you know, meet the scope um without being
oversized. [cough and clears throat] And at some point as we get closer to the
final scoring, you're probably going to have to start weighing in, you know,
whether or not it's got some outdoor recreational space. Does that fit the
quote scope that we ultimately land on?
Again, it may not be an exact number, and I think that's kind of where we've
landed that I don't know that we're going to have an exact number of how
many how much additional land how much additional land, you know, is adequate,
but we'll we know that it needs to be something, right? We I think that's kind
of the message that the public has said that it should have some outdoor
recreational value. And when we if we get a site that shows
30 acres, that's going to score higher than one that has 12, right?
» Because it's going to fit the scope better,
» you know, in the long run. And the scope is more outdoor a little more outdoor
recreational space. >> But again, we'll we'll score this as a
unit as uh as Sophia said. So So there's still be kind of a chance to talk
through that. Yeah. >> As it relates to each site. And again,
we'll probably end up doing that in executive session so we don't end up,
you know, letting the land owner know, you know, where the preference might be.
» So with the um with that first site features section, um I think that this
really is kind of like setting the whole scene for what site it is. Um, so you
know, discussion of property owner, um, what is the usable area, is there
significant regrading that needs to be done. These are all things that likely
will kind of cost the board a little bit more money. Um, so we're taking into
consideration all of those things. >> So 11, where it says existing site
features and amenities contribute to the proposed development, are we talking
about like utilities or so? Um the existing site features perhaps there is
um I know some of the sites are near um some of the baseball fields um big
walnut high school. So you know that would
» be um a positive >> uh feature for the site. So uh items
like that >> or but yes utilities as well. Okay.
» Are there any additional questions on the site features?
for any if so for 12 a site does not require parcel assembly for multiple
owners. I mean to the extent that there is a parcel that requires like assembly
for multiple owners I mean do we know what the process is for that or will we
» Yeah. So um I mean I think that it would really just be um I mean likely there is
a zoning um change but then also just working with the local
» Okay. jurisdiction.
» Um I do think that it was a little bit higher um because now it is just at a
three. We um are not anticipating
much of a push back with that.
Well, the next one, >> right? Uh, with zoning and legal, we did
uh take some of these down a little bit, but um we have most of these ranked at
number one. Um, zoning allows proposed use. Uh, current zoning provides
flexibility and potential uses of the of the property. um no overlay districts um
requiring restrictions um and then no additional commission approvals are
required. So um you know zoning is something that can be changed relatively
easily working with um your local jurisdiction but uh it would save time
and funds not having to reszone. So that was the thought process behind that
being the highest weighted item um for number 17. I know that um I believe uh
Sunberry and Galina just have their own um commissions, but then uh with
Berkshire Township, you would have to go through the Delaware County um
commission, which might take a little bit more time. So, we we have that one
on there specifically just because of the jurisdictional requirements.
Any
comments on zoning >> for so for the liquor license
availability is that for like you know flex space uses and yeah so future use
if you ever wanted to host events I mean we haven't really talked about event
space or multi-purpose but um flex future expansion anything like
I can um move on to site context if there are no more questions regarding
that. Um so with the site context, this is really about kind of the use of the
site and what the space is. So, um, we have a number of different items on
here, but proposed community center would benefit from nearby and existing
development, support services, and amenities. Um, I think
we we increased this one a little bit, but not by much. Um, it is still
weighted at a four, so pretty moderate. I think comparing what is surrounding
it, if it's in an industrial space, we would likely consider that site a little
bit less than something that was perhaps in a residential area or closer to the
schools. So, making sure that the development fits within what is
surrounding it um the context of the site, but then also existing
adjacencies. um providing uh visibility support civic
presence landmarks. So something that's maybe closer located to the uh downtown
or the core of one of the EDJRD um members. But then we also have uh
community supports the proposed development and location. And so we
found through our survey that there were there was an overwhelming amount of
support. But I think um depending on where this is located, if it's closer to
residential, closer to schools, we found that those uh items or those locations
were more highly requested. So, um a little bit more about where the general
area for a site would be.
For number 18, it states uh there would be nearby existing development. What
about any future upcoming development that is in the works? Are you take that
into account as well then or >> Yes. So, uh we are taking that into
account especially the work that Rick did. Um the urban decision group sites
uh showed a lot of proposed development. So that is definitely something that we
will be taking into consideration. Um number 20 is proposed development will
positively impact adjacent future development. So I think that we feel
that is covered under that item. But um with this grouping of criteria in
particular, we'll be heavily relying on Rick's information and what he collected
um especially in the maps that he made. So showing where it is located or where
potential sites are located in context to proposed development of residential
space but also uh residential and then also the other potential or other
facilities surrounding the area. >> Okay.
» Yeah. And I I would just add a little bit related to that item 31 under
economic opportunities and benefits. The proposed development will encourage you
know adjacent private development that creates positive economic impact. So so
the first one seems to suggest that you know that something is about to happen.
The other one maybe suggests that it could encourage that to happen. What's
up?
just for my understanding context. Uh could you define community partners? I
have something in mind. What does it mean to you?
» So I think it is subjective that that certainly is um the case but also you
know there are a number of new um residential developments going in. So
perhaps if there was a desire to swap or donate some land so that there would be
a community center nearby. So I think community partner could be the schools,
it could be a private developer, it could be um village of Galina or
Sunberry um a community partner in that aspect. So I think it's uh just a an
entity willing to work with our team. >> Okay.
» [clears throat and cough] >> I know my notes stated quite a bit
higher, but I that's why I wanted to clarify what community partner meant,
how that worked together. Um, I had it significantly higher
because I want this to be a community center. I don't want this to be in the
corner of our jurisdiction and nobody's around. I need this to be part of
everybody else. >> Yeah.
» In heart. >> That's why I think it's important to be
cognizant of our community partners, who they are, what their plans are, talk to
them, work with them, grow with them. >> Yeah,
» we we do think that um the community partners is a very important aspect to
this development. I think like I mentioned earlier having um utilities
and the site context some items in that weighted particularly higher. We wanted
to make sure that it was all relative. Um I think that with um community
support of the development but then also um we have number 18 rated relatively
weighted weighted relatively high. Um we think that these are going to positively
impact uh just based on the community support. Okay.
One take away I had was there several items.
» Yeah. >> Look at it as a whole.
» Yeah.
» Great. >> Um so utilities, both of these are rated
pretty highly. We only have two items. Um, we find that it can be like
relatively subjective when you're reviewing utilities and we have had
enough experience with projects where utilities are either not available on
the site or uh located right relatively far away. And so we find that these are
two very important um aspects when considering a site. So, um, if they're
not already on the site or very closely adjacent, we find that, um, 500 ft is a
relatively acceptable distance, um, just based on previous experience for how
much it would be to extend a utility, um, along with any tapping capacity fees
usually. So, if it is not adjacent or on the site itself, we still have an
opportunity to provide some points rather than just saying they're there
are no utilities available on the site. So if they're not on the site directly
um they should be within 500 ft and you know very similarly say three utilities
are available there's water sewer electric but there's no um power or I
mean I'm sorry you know there are some available utilities but they're not all
available then you could also rank that second option um with that as well and
the profiles that we'll provide to you um will have at least some information
regarding starting utilities um and what is available.
So, you won't have to find find that out on your own. We'll we'll figure that
out. >> Yeah. I've been told several times that
sewer is the name of the game you're out here. So,
» yeah, >> that to me ranks a lot higher other
ones. >> Yes. Yeah. Um
» that out. >> Yeah, we we um have had a few projects
up in this area that utilities are not available. Um, and you'll find out
either a little bit later than you would like to. So, we're making sure that this
is definitely a priority when we're reviewing these sites.
» Now, when I went to the new wall with the fieldhouse, they mentioned they have
their they planned everything to go on septic.
» Yeah. >> And in the process, they got soup. So,
that's big s. So, that's always another option to explore it. But
» so they um I'm the project manager for that as well. Um and we had started with
septic and then it was proving to be a little bit difficult to find a septic
tank that is of that size that you would need for a facility that size. Um it is
definitely possible but um it is just a more expensive option.
» Yeah. >> Yeah. They mentioned the cost was about
half. >> Yeah. There are additional um facilities
that you have to build too um when you do septic. So Okay. Um it is it is
always an option. It would not be our first choice but it is an option.
Um moving on to access. So this uh has a few different aspects in it. Um you know
there are areas of the EDC JRD that are relatively rural. So um that brings down
a few things. Obviously access to the site. you might need to uh invest in
some additional roadway improvements or any roadway, but also um then that also
takes down the um potential users of the space. So um that's another one um that
will kind of have multiple impacts and things leading to it. But um with this
list in particular, surrounding conditions and capacity of the roadway
um of local or state traffic will support the development um making sure
that it's not just you know um perhaps a a grapple road. Um and then proposed
location needs or requirements identified in the market analysis. So,
like what we were discussing with Rick and his proposed developments or just
location to surrounding um residents.
We also added um item 30 to this list. Um Darl mentioned that uh the Morph
Greenway paths and trail plans could help um pull in some potential shared
use path options. And so making sure that there is still connection
throughout the surrounding district. Um so making sure that we include that in
connectors for shared use paths
for access um and tying in community partners. Have there been any thought to
connecting with the fire department to ask them
If you had it your way, were there any short are there any shortcuts? Can we
help with that somehow one way or another? I'm just kind of thinking
because I I think that was brought up by a resident that said, "Hey, that
» fire department would love to have a road here. They just can't pay. There's
no reason to have a road here, but if that could help, why not?"
» Yeah, >> just a thought
as well. >> Yeah, that's a really great idea.
any additional questions with access. So then our final um final is the
economic development opportunities and benefits. So this is more about what the
proposed development of the surrounding area could be. Um location features are
pos uh I'm sorry positive and marketable for events. um local incentives are
available for development um potential for cost sharing. So very similar to
what you just mentioned, you know, potential cost sharing and extending a
roadway. Um but then also development of the proposed site will not reduce future
taxable property to prevent um new private development. So, they're similar
to what we talked about earlier. Having a site that would be in the middle of an
industrial space might not be the best location um context wise, but also then
economic development wise for the uh EDJRD
um members. So, taking some consideration into that. Obviously, I
think that there are plenty of very desirable sites that we are looking at
right now. So I don't really see that as an issue, but it is something that we'll
consider making sure that the taxable revenue is not taken away from the
jurisdictions.
We also uh considered the positive and marketable um area. Um,
and when we were thinking about this, you know, uh, we talked about the
location and using urban decision groups site work, um, and taking that into
consideration. And we find that, um, you know, it will
likely be positive and marketable for the community no matter where it is
likely. So, um, we we felt comfortable with we I think we brought it up maybe
one or two points, not um, a large amount, but we felt that this would make
it wherever the site is going to be real really would make it more marketable for
community use or also just community development.
So you're referencing number 32. Is that correct? Facilities location are
» Yes. >> It's still on mention it went up.
» Um
» I'll have to go back and look at my notes, but perhaps it's supposed to be a
two.
Yeah, from my perspective if if if say that one be positive and remarkable
is only ranked at one and if it's negative and not marketable and zero
that's one point big I think should be quite high from my perspective I think
it will with all of it [clears throat] to rank
Are there any questions about the criteria that we mentioned um or
discussed? Um I think that as far as next steps if uh there is an approval
from the board then we will start our review um as quickly as possible um so
that we can get it into that so that we can schedule a meeting
to review with the EDJR board as well. >> Do you need approval tonight to this
schedule? Slide eight. Um, I think that that would
uh be likely the best. Obviously, we can wait.
Um, but that just would push the schedule back. And if it's a discussion
that needs to be had offline, then um or just in an executive session with your
team, that's that's okay. But if it needs to wait until another board
meeting, then obviously it will just impact the schedule.
» Correct. Waiting full. >> Yeah. all together.
I just want to make sure that the other board members here have a chance to kind
of sit, dissect, and absorb because there's a lot here. And I guess
the one question I also have is these are are good. Then we get sites back,
oh, this is what the rain does. We still have the latitude to use our judgment.
» Yeah. >> Just because it rated high doesn't mean
that's that's >> Yeah, absolutely.
discuss.
» Yes.
» Yes. So I I was writing down I mean maybe if we change the way it's written.
So again maybe at least 10 acres is outside of the flood plane and that way
you know you've got >> a 90,000 square foot building that you
know fits comfortably in the space. um you know maybe that it's so again it
sort of and if something comes in that's less than that you know it's scoring low
and it's and it's waiting factor I mean I guess it yeah by scoring low the
waiting factor doesn't lift it up any but if it if it's at least 10 acres it's
outside the flood plane and it meets you know the building footprint issue scores
high on that front it gets weighted the court three four whatever the number
might be maybe that's a way to at least get keep them moving
in the evaluation and then when we get together as a group
» we can sort through it if anybody's sort of on the margins.
» Yeah. And that's one of the things I'm struggling with is that this is all
geared to the site and building. We have two simultaneous paths where we have
site building and potentially outside area. So
» just try to see how to balance that in a criteria like this.
So if we could change number nine to state whether
I think
» I'm sorry to what did you say?
» I didn't hear what you said.
for the flood plane. I I would say so. >> I think it is going to hit.
» I would say that is reasonable.
» That's the hard part. We're setting criteria. We don't I feel like once you
see the site now used to go like
I'll get sites
all
explore creative site that meets a whole lot of criteria
that might start.
So I think this
» five
sit back here.
They don't come together.
Yeah. And as we have your team rank them, I think especially your priorities
as a board and what the site is are going to come into play um more than
just our like technical expertise. what you want out of out of the building and
out of the program is going to be something that's incredibly important
and it might change and differ from what our rankings are, but that's why we have
you included in those as well. >> So, so really this is just a guide to
help us think through everything that we want to think. But the the the goal at
the end of the day is not to say this scored, you know, a 123 and that was
124. So, we're going with 124.
down. So
really just
Yeah.
How long?
So we got to go back.
This is the criteria.
» Thank you.
All right. Forward. >> So, go ahead.
» Yeah, I was gonna say, so we do we do have a motion to approve the criteria.
So, maybe what I'm hearing is again, we're going to amend the language in
item number three. Uh, you know, to say it I don't know, is
it 10 or 15? I don't mean number nine. I'm sorry. Number nine. Number nine.
Yeah. Waited three. Sorry. Um, at least you know 10 acres is outside the flood
plane. At least 15 acres.
» I'd air on the side of 15. >> I'm okay with that.
» Okay. So then with that change, like I said,
there's a motion to basically then accept the criteria, allow them to do
their ranking, then we'll come back as a board, see the top, you know, whatever
five, three, five, 3, four, five, six, whatever that number looks like. We'll
talk about it in an executive session, and we'll come out, I think, with a good
sense of which ones we think are top of the list. And then they'll go out and
start seeing if there's a way to secure the site.
I mean, there's also some site. >> They got to fit the site, too. Yeah. I
guess we wouldn't secure the site right away. We got to make sure it fit. So,
» so is there a motion? Yeah, >> I'll make the motion.
» All right. Second resolution 05. So, moved by Miss Watson, seconded by Mr.
Koy.
All right. Miss Miss Watson, >> yes.
» Mr. Koy, >> yes.
» Miss Greor, >> yes.
» Mr. Muzakio, >> yes.
» Miss Savannah, >> yes.
» Motion approved. 5 Z. Great. Thanks. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda. So, we did resolution 202605. Next would be 2026
budget update. >> Um, I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but
can we maybe go back to the meeting minutes?
Jody, if you
I was not present
but said on here the meeting was May 21st on Sunday but I think
so that's where earlier Sunday
» so Sunday was Sunday was the Sunday the 17th was
» Sunday >> and then Thursday the 21st
» Yeah. >> So the date and the mixed up
» think so I think >> I just know I had day on 18th Sunday it
was setting up Sunday.
» Yeah. So, so these
» so I think page two of the materials the second line it should say um Thursday
May 21st. >> Yeah.
» Good catch. >> Well
» yeah that was all Jody >> and then because we had approved the May
17th meeting minutes which is reflected in our minutes. See, I think if we just
change Sunday to Thursday, we got it. So, I guess
» Oh, I I'm sorry. I see where you are. I was down under the minutes. Yes,
Thursday. Got it. Thursday, May 21st. All right. Why don't we uh why don't we
reapprove the minutes then with that correction. So, we'll say uh amended
minutes. So, we've got two amendments. We've got
the the date as in Thursday May 21
and we've got then the motion the move and approval of resolution 04 which we
get corrected in the first minutes.
» So >> we have a motion to approve the
» I'll second. So moved by Miss Greger, second by Miss Watson.
» All right. Miss Greger. >> Yes.
» Miss Watson. >> Yes.
» Miss Savvada. >> Yes.
» Mr. Mazakio. >> Yes.
» And Mr. Koy. >> Yes.
» Five years. Motion approved.
Great. Thank you.
All right. The only other item in the agenda just uh a snapshot of where we
are with respect to the budget. So at the last meeting we amended the budget.
So you see the amended budget on packet page 19.
Um as we talked about um you know we will
have to get some funding in place for accounting and audit purposes. We had
talked about maybe going back to the jurisdictions and asking for the funds
that were not spent in 2025. uh would they be willing to appropriate
those moving forward that ended up being a little short of $10,000?
Um so the way to kind of think about that um Sunbury would be at 46 46 and a
half% of that Berkshire 43.9 Galina at 9.7. I I'll put that together for the
next meeting so we know the exact amounts that we're requesting. Um, I I
will say that Sunbury has uh already approved an amendment allowing for that
additional appropriation. So, so we've at least secured that, but I'll I'll get
the exact numbers and bring those back and we'll get that cleaned up. So,
other than that, that is it on the on the budget.
Next item is information. Any discussion?
Then we go to next meeting before we adjourn. Yes.
So >> in the schedule you had suggested some
dates. Sophia, you want to start by throwing those out again?
» Yeah.
» 21st.
» I'm sorry. Was the 20th one of them or was it the 21st and 22? 21st.
» All right. So let's see.
The 21st is a Tuesday. >> Would we be look since it's probably a
two-hour meeting, would we be looking to start at what six?
That works. >> So, I can't be in person on the first
two, but I could on the second two. I could probably do virtual on first two
for the 21st, 22. I would be traveling. So,
» I can do any of those dates.
» It would be better for me if we could do it on the 29th and 30th. But if more
people cannot do that,
» you can do the third. Okay. All four is fine.
That's great. [laughter] We'll
» accommodate your
» go for Thursday 30th
» at 6 p.m.
» Yes, that' be good.
All right, we want to move that back to Sunbury then
» because I think Sunbury would be next in the rotation.
All right.
July 30 6 p.m. December. And just for planning
purposes, will we be getting a like a packet before that meeting to start
looking through? >> Yeah.
» Okay. That
» Yeah, that would be ideal.
Yeah. So, on that, I'll need to I'll need to talk to Becky just a little bit
about the documents um just to make sure we can
protect those a little bit. So, I've got a little bit of work to do on that. So,
Okay, >> perfect. And I'll make a motion to
adjurnn. >> I'll second.
» All right. Moved by Mr. Koy, seconded by Miss Sabata. Uh, Mr. Koy.
» Yes. >> Sabata.
» Yes. >> Mr. Mazakio.
» Yes. >> Uh, Miss Greger.
» Yes. >> And Miss Watson,
» yes. >> Uh, five years. We are adjourned.
Turn up.