JRD board hears Pazuti Solutions plan for community center; moves to approve $67,200 request

The Joint Recreation District (JRD) board in Sunbury City on Monday reviewed a fee proposal from Pazuti Solutions to produce conceptual design renderings, a finance strategy and a ranked site shortlist intended to support a future ballot measure.

Consultant Jim Russell summarized the proposal’s three phases: first, refine the program and produce conceptual renderings “enough that you’ll be able to present things to the public”; second, determine financing and a cost-recovery model to set bond sizing and operating assumptions; and third, identify and score candidate sites and secure site control ahead of a ballot. Russell recommended aiming for roughly 10 candidate sites for a “deep dive,” then narrowing to three-to-five top options based on objective criteria such as utilities, zoning, access and affordability.

Why it matters: the package is intended to give voters a clear program, price and preferred location so a future bond or levy can be presented with firm estimates and public-facing visuals. Russell told the board the team will escalate price estimates to the midpoint of construction and include both project and design contingencies to reduce the risk that the bond amount falls short during construction.

Board members asked how candidate properties will be located. Russell said the team will start with land owned by member jurisdictions, pull records for listed parcels statewide, and—if needed—approach owners of off‑market parcels. He said Pazuti can work with local brokers and, if authorized, represent the district in purchase negotiations as part of the contract without charging an additional brokerage fee.

On site control, Russell described three standard approaches: purchase (rare without available funds), negotiated purchase‑option (the most likely route; the consultant recommended at least a two‑year option), or a joint‑venture/agreement with a willing landowner. He cited recent regional projects that used purchase options to preserve pricing until financing closed.

The board also discussed program-level choices and campaign preparation. The packet included guidance from the Secretary of State’s campaign‑finance handbook; staff advised that a volunteer campaign committee should conduct electoral activity because the board cannot use public funds to campaign. Staff and consultants said public engagement sessions on programming (notably aquatics and event-space options) and visible renderings will be central to educating voters.

Budget and contracting: staff recorded a base contract request of $67,200 for Pazuti’s scope and described minor additional costs for travel, production and an owner’s allowance for limited out‑of‑scope reimbursables. To fund the contract, staff proposed reallocating modest amounts from insurance, legal or accounting lines and seeking to recapture an approximately $9,000 variance from member jurisdictions to backfill consulting costs.

What the board did: with quorum questions noted earlier in the meeting, a motion to proceed with the contract was made and two members — Miss Watson and Mr. Muzakio — voted “Yes” on the motion on the record. The chair indicated the scheduling of a follow-up virtual meeting to finalize quorum and next steps if needed.

The next steps identified were for staff and Pazuti Solutions to finalize the contract scope and schedule, begin the program and site‑scoring work, and return to the board with a full package (preferred sites, renderings and financial strategy) targeted for the late‑November development deadline and for consideration in early 2027 for ballot placement.