[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.