The Eastern Delaware County Joint Recreation District on an unanimous vote amended its 2025 budget to add local contributions and cover consulting work and discussed finalizing a services agreement with contractor Pizzuti that includes an annual-appropriation notice requirement.

The budget amendment approved by the board increases the district’s 2025 funding to provide for consulting services to complete a needs assessment and market analysis. Chair Ally Watson called the roll and confirmed a quorum before the vote.

Why it matters: Board members said the added funding is intended to keep the consultant work moving so the district can complete a needs assessment and begin planning for potential bond or levy work for a future facility. Board members discussed what additional costs the district may face next year — including conceptual design, architectural services and potential legal fees for levy work — and agreed to seek a budget estimate in time for jurisdictional partners to consider appropriations.

Board discussion and contract status

Mike (staff member) reported that Pizzuti’s general counsel accepted the draft revisions the district’s counsel proposed, with one additional request: because the agreement includes appropriation language, Pizzuti asked that the contract include a notice provision triggered if the board determines funding will not be available. “The only additional change they proposed back was that due to the appropriation language … the contract would be subject to annual appropriation,” Mike said, and added that the district would give notice if it became aware it lacked funds to meet the contract obligations. The board’s draft also removed a prevailing‑party attorney‑fee provision, added reciprocal limits on damages and added a fiscal‑officer certificate.

Chair Watson said she would sign the owner signature page if the board was comfortable and that Trustee Elliott would sign the fiscal‑officer certificate. Board members agreed that scanned signatures were acceptable to finalize approval initially, with wet‑ink signatures to follow when practical.

Steering committee and project oversight

The board discussed forming a non‑quorum steering committee to work directly with Pizzuti during the project’s initial phase. Greg Musacchio, Todd (board member) and Bernie (staff member) were named as initial steering‑committee participants; the committee will schedule a kickoff meeting and report back to the full board. Board members emphasized that the steering group would allow the project to move forward without triggering a quorum requirement while enabling more frequent input.

Budget amendment and funding details

Daryl (staff member) presented an exhibit showing the current 2025 budget, the proposed amendment and a projection of remaining cash. The amendment adds $26,100 of local contributions (identified in discussion as the Sunbury City contribution) to the previously approved $20,000, producing a working total of about $46,100 to cover consulting services for the remainder of the calendar year. The board also reduced the insurance line from $5,000 to $3,000 after receiving quotes; the actual insurance cost in the packet was slightly lower than $3,000.

On motions: the board voted to approve the minutes from the Aug. 27 meeting and later approved a resolution amending the 2025 budget to include the additional local funds discussed.

Planning for 2026 and levy/bond implications

Board members identified likely next‑year expenses: conceptual architectural design, construction cost estimating, potential bonding costs and outreach. Mike said partnering with a construction firm could produce cost estimates more quickly, and that using Pizzuti for additional, limited work might be faster than issuing a new RFQ if the additional scope remains below the district’s procurement threshold. Board members asked staff to obtain a high‑level estimate from Pizzuti for conceptual design and construction‑cost ranges so local partners (Village of Galena, Berkshire Township and Sunbury City) can consider requests for appropriations in their 2026 budgets.

Daryl and Mike clarified that public funds cannot be used for a levy campaign; a volunteer campaign committee would raise funds separately and could use factual materials the district provides. The board discussed legal costs: if a bond issuance ultimately funds the project, levy‑related legal fees are often rolled into bond issuance costs; if a levy fails and legal fees are incurred only to get the levy on the ballot, those costs would be charged separately and are estimated at roughly $6,000–$8,000.

Next steps and scheduling

The board set a follow‑up virtual meeting for Oct. 6 at 8 p.m. to review the budget estimate and any updated cost information. Staff was directed to collect high‑level cost estimates from Pizzuti and to circulate contract redlines for final review so the Chair can sign the agreement and the district can proceed with the consultant’s work.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of Aug. 27 meeting minutes — motion and second recorded on the transcript; roll call: Greg Musacchio: yes; Ally Watson: yes; Ms. Greger: yes; Trustee Elliott: yes. Outcome: approved.

- Resolution amending the 2025 budget to add local contributions and cover consulting services — motion and second recorded on the transcript; roll call: Trustee Elliott: yes; Ally Watson: yes; Mr. Coy: yes; Ms. Greger: yes; Greg Musacchio: yes. Outcome: approved.

The meeting adjourned after the board set the Oct. 6 follow‑up meeting date.