Consultants say community supports Sunbury-area rec center; site control, costs and ballot timing remain key
Loading...
Summary
Consultants reported strong public support—695 survey responses and 79% backing an outdoor pool—recommended a medium-sized rec center with an 8–12 acre core site and advised the board to secure site control, refine costs and prepare a Phase 2 package if it intends to seek voter approval next year.
Consultants for the Eastern Delaware County Joint Recreational District told the board Monday that public input strongly favors a multigenerational community recreation center but that site control, refined cost estimates and clear financing plans are the next critical steps before a ballot measure.
"We still had 695 participants in the second online survey," Resideo Solutions project manager Sophia Alonso told the board, describing survey and workshop results showing strong interest in fitness space, pools, gym courts, flexible program rooms and family-oriented amenities. Alonso said respondents prioritized accessibility and affordability and that a youth-sports organization was among the most vocal groups in the engagement process.
Market-analysis lead Rich ("Rick") Stein summarized trade-area findings and program implications, saying consultants tested three target facility sizes — about 50,000, 100,000 and 150,000 square feet — and that most workshop groups gravitated to the medium option. He described trade-offs for pool and court sizes that affect both capital costs and potential revenue through competitions and programming.
On site and budget questions, consultants advised an initial core site of roughly 8–12 acres for the indoor facility (not including large outdoor fields), and flagged wide uncertainty in acquisition and development costs. Consultants discussed a per-acre site-development planning range and emphasized that site infrastructure and soils can materially change final project costs. One consultant summarized the range for development and construction contingencies, and an agency advisor later gave planning-ballot guidance: "The facility is gonna cost somewhere between 45 and 74,000,000, for example, maybe tack on an additional 5,000,000 for land acquisition," the advisor said, underscoring the need to refine those numbers before certifying a bond amount.
Board members asked whether outdoor fields should be colocated; consultants said fields were a frequent request but not a strict requirement of the indoor program and recommended treating large outdoor amenities as a potential separate phase to reduce near-term site size and cost pressure.
On timing, an advisor outlined calendar constraints: filing for the May 27 ballot requires action by Feb. 3 (resolution of necessity and county auditor certification), and the board discussed whether to aim for a May or a November ballot given the work remaining. Consultants recommended a near-term Phase 2 to produce: a site-evaluation matrix, conceptual renderings, an independent cost estimate, and a refined operational/cost-recovery model to support a ballot package.
The board set a follow-up meeting for April 26 at 7 p.m. to review a proposed Phase 2 scope of services and next steps toward site selection and financing.
