Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Site Plan Report 2010 by Centre Region Parks & Recreation Authority

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS M ASTER SITE PLAN FO R T H E C ENT RE R EGION O F G O V E R N MENT S

COUNCIL

BRC-TAG-13.6-589

p e n n s y l v a n i a

c o r p o r a t i o n

with Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects and Stahl Sheaffer Engineering, Inc.

AUGUS T 2010

Acknowledgements The contributions of the following groups and individuals were vital to the success of the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Master Site Plan. They are commended for their interest in the project, their perseverance, and the input they provided throughout the planning process. The Study Committee was formed from members of the COG Parks Capital Committee and the Centre Regional Recreation Authority/CRPR Board.

STUDY COMMITTEE Harris Township Cliff Warner Roy Harpster College Township Dan Klees, Chairman Kathy Matason

Special thanks to the Staff: Ronald J. Woodhead, CPRP, CPSI - Director of Parks and Recreation Jeffrey Hall - Recreation Supervisor / Fitness and Sports Greg Roth, CRPR, CPSI - Parks Supervisor Diane Ishler - Office Manager James C. Steff - Director, Centre Region COG

State College Borough Jim Rosenberger Donna Conway Ferguson Township Dick Mascolo - Richard Killian Sue Mascolo Patton Township Jeff Luck Chris Hurley State College Area School District Donna Ricketts, D.Ed. Penn State University Dan Sieminski

This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnership Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

COG REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL PARK MASTER SITE PLANS ................................... 3 BENEFITS OF PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................................... 4 STUDY FORMAT ........................................................................................................... 4 COMMUNITY SETTING AND REGIONAL LOCATION ............................................................ 5 Key Issues for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands ............................................................................... 6 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 7

EXISTING PARK SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 9 1) Regional Facilities............................................................................................................................ 10 2) Community Parks and Facilities .......................................................................................................11 3) Neighborhood Parks and Facilities.................................................................................................. 13 4) Special Use Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 15 The Role of Oak Hall Regional Parklands and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands in the Existing Parks System ......................................................................................................................................... 15

EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS ..................................................................................... 16 Centre County Comprehensive Plan (2003) ......................................................................................... 16 Centre County Greenway and Recreation Plan (Ongoing) .................................................................. 17 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan (2000) ......................................................................................... 17 Spring Creek Watershed Plan - Phase 1 ............................................................................................... 18 Centre Region Comprehensive Recreation, Park, and Open Space Study (1986) ................................ 18 Oak Hall Regional Parkland (2009) ..................................................................................................... 19 Hess Softball Field Complex Feasibility Study (2009) ......................................................................... 20 Beneficial Re-use Project ...................................................................................................................... 21 Musser Gap Trail Planning .................................................................................................................. 21 PennDot Planning for road improvements to Whitehall Road at Blue Course Drive .......................... 22

CHAPTER 2: SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS ......................................................................

25 BASE MAPPING .......................................................................................................... 25 BUILT FEATURES AND SITE INFORMATION ..................................................................... 26 Location, Size, and Legal Status ........................................................................................................... 26 Rights-of-Way and Easements............................................................................................................... 26 Access.................................................................................................................................................... 26 Zoning and Adjacent Land Use............................................................................................................. 26 Existing Structures and Roads .............................................................................................................. 27 Existing Recreational Facilities ............................................................................................................ 27 Site History and Context ....................................................................................................................... 27 Abandoned Mine Lands ........................................................................................................................ 27 Utilities.................................................................................................................................................. 27

NATURAL FEATURES ................................................................................................... 29 Water Features and Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 29 Soils ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Soil Investigation ................................................................................................................................. 30 Topography ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................. 30 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Natural Heritage Areas ......................................................................................................................... 31 Other Site Factors ................................................................................................................................. 31

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 32 Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 32

CHAPTER 3: ACTIVITIES & FACILITIES ANALYSIS & DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 37 2002 Active Recreation Facility Recommendations Memo .................................................................. 37 Sports Fields Needs Analysis Summary ................................................................................................ 37

FACILITIES ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 40 Sports Facility Standard Sources .......................................................................................................... 41 Facility Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 41 Adjacencies and Density of Facilities ................................................................................................... 50 ADA Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 50

CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY

BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE PARKS ............................................................................... 55 WAYS OF ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE PARK DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 55 Minimize Impervious Surface Area ....................................................................................................... 55 Implement Rain Gardens / Bio-infiltration Swales ............................................................................... 56 Other Sustainable Park Features.......................................................................................................... 56 LEED Certification ............................................................................................................................... 56 Sustainable Sites Initiative .................................................................................................................... 57 Park Sustainability Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 58 Green Principles for Park Development and Sustainability................................................................. 59 Reduce Park Waste ............................................................................................................................... 59 Design and Construct Sustainable Trails ............................................................................................. 60 Conserve and Manage Site Forested Areas .......................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & DESIGN PROCESS 61

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................ 63 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 65

DESIGN PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 66 Description of Concept Plans ............................................................................................................... 66 Concept Comparisons ........................................................................................................................... 69 Draft Master Plan Description ............................................................................................................. 69 Final Master Plan Description ............................................................................................................. 73 Traffic Master Planning ........................................................................................................................ 74 Stormwater Management Planning ...................................................................................................... 76

Sanitary Sewer Master Planning .......................................................................................................... 77 Water Service Master Planning ............................................................................................................ 77 Electric Service Master Planning ......................................................................................................... 77 Accessibility in the Master Plan ...................................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER 6: COST ESTIMATES & FINANCING

COST ESTIMATE FOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 87 PHASING .................................................................................................................... 91 MANAGEMENT, OPERATION, RISK MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE............................ 97 Management.......................................................................................................................................... 97 Maintenance.......................................................................................................................................... 97 Maintenance Staffing, Supplies, and Equipment ................................................................................. 99 CRPR Fee Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 102 Potential Revenue Production ............................................................................................................ 102 Sport Field Use ................................................................................................................................... 102

FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................................... 103 Revenue Potential Summary Phase I ................................................................................................. 103

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION REVIEW APPENDIX B: SOIL SURVEY APPENDIX C: PNDI APPENDIX D: MEETING MINUTES AND MATERIALS APPENDIX E: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND OTHER PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS APPENDIX F: PRACTICE AND GAME FIELD ANALYSIS AND SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX G: 2002 CRPR NEEDS MEMO APPENDIX H: SAMPLE MAINTENANCE PLAN APPENDIX I: DCNR GREEN PRINCIPLES FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX J: TENNIS FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX K: COST ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX L: PARK DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE MEMO

Chapter 1: Background

Chapter 1:

Background

PROJECT INTRODUCTION In 2001, five municipalities officially embarked on an expansion of their long-established cooperation to jointly fund the acquisition, development, and operation of at least two new “regional” parks. The purpose is to: • Provide for active recreation activities, including but not limited to softball, baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis, football, lacrosse, and • Enhance public access to and enjoyment of the environment with provisions for passive recreation. This Master Plan presents recommendations for the 100-acre Whitehall Road Regional Parklands (75 acres acquired, 25 acres under option to purchase), the second of the two regional parks proposed by the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG). Master Planning for the first regional park, the 68-acre Oak Hall Regional Parklands, was completed in May of 2009. The planning process for Oak Hall Regional Parklands included preliminary planning for the facilities at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands so that the proposed programming for both regional parks would best meet the current and future recreation needs of the five municipalities. Overall, the COG wishes to explore some levels of tournament-class facilities for both regional parks. Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is located at the southern border of State College, within Ferguson Township. Oak Hall Regional Parklands is located off Route 322 in College and Harris Township. In addition, the COG recently began to explore ways to preserve the operation of a 4-field, 21-acre softball complex (Hess Softball Field Complex), in Harris Township on PA Rt. 45, between Boalsburg and Pine Grove Mills. It has been operated (on leased land) by a volunteer group for many years, and it hosts upwards of 1,500 games per year, including many statewide tournaments.

COG REQUIREMENT S FOR REGIONAL PARK MAS TER SITE PL ANS The agreement that authorizes the voluntary participation by each municipality (5 total) specifies the following: 1. So as to develop the regional parklands to best serve the needs of the Participating Municipalities and to fulfill the purpose of the regional parklands (Section 2), the COG will coordinate the preparation of a Master Site Plan for each regional park. That planning process will engage representatives of the Participating Municipalities and others as may be determined by the Participating Municipalities. 2. Each Master Site Plan for a regional park must be approved by the unanimous action of the Participating Municipalities at the COG General Forum prior to any park development (construction) activities on the respective site.

3. The approved Master Site Plan for each park must identify the recommended phasing, if any, of the construction of the various facilities and features, the cost estimates for constructing those facilities, and any temporary (interim) facilities that may be developed on the site. 4. Revisions to the Master Site Plan must be approved by a unanimous vote of the Participating Municipalities. There will be no development of park facilities, whether temporary or permanent, that is not shown on the approved Master Site Plan unless the plan is revised to include that facility or feature. 5. The Master Site Planning process may incorporate, as approved by a majority of the Participating Municipalities, the requirements of the grants or other financial contributions that may be obtained for their preparation. In all cases, the approved plans must meet the applicable deed requirements as previously established by DCNR, PSU, and where appropriate, the National Park Service.

BENEFIT S OF PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and recreation play a critical role in providing a high quality of life to communities. •

Environmental benefits include: o Preserving habitat and wildlife, o Protecting ecosystems, and o Reducing pollutants.

•

Community benefits include: o Providing places to relax and engage in community gatherings and events and o Providing opportunities to enjoy the natural environment.

•

Economic benefits include: o Attracting businesses and their employees to the area, o Increasing property values, and o Boosting tourism.

S TUDY FORMAT This Master Plan process involves a number of steps, including the following: •

•

Chapter 1 – Community Background Information o The community setting and regional location. o Socio-economic data including demographics. o Existing planning efforts related to this Study. Chapter 2 - Site Inventory and Analysis o A base map of the site and immediate surroundings. o A map of existing natural and cultural conditions within the study area in order to identify opportunities and constraints for park development.

•

• • •

•

Chapter 3 – Activities and Facilities Analysis and Design Considerations o Activities identified by the community. o The uses, type, sizes, and standards of recommended facilities. o The maximum number of vehicle trips anticipated for the park. o Design considerations and standards. Chapter 4 – Sustainability o Sustainable park design and practices. Chapter 5 - Public Participation and Design Process o Public participation process. o Design process, including concept plans, draft master plan, and the final master plan. Chapter 6 – Cost Estimates and Financing o Construction costs for park development. o A phased capital improvements plan identifying short- and long-term strategies for development. o Funding strategies needed to support the capital improvement plan. o Operating costs and potential revenue for the park. Appendices

It is important to note that the Master Plans are a general land use plan identifying types and concentrations of facilities. Specific details of the design and the final locations of facilities may be adjusted through subsequent design without violating the concepts represented by these master plans.

COMMUNIT Y SETTING AND REGIONAL LOCATION The Centre Region is located in the Nittany Valley in Centre County. Agricultural, iron ore mining, and timbering opportunities first drew settlers to the valley, which was previously inhabited by four separate tribes of Native Americans. Central Pennsylvania’s iron ore industry was the most prosperous in the nation between 1800 and 1850. This success spurred transportation improvements that led to further population growth. In the twentieth century, agriculture and education became the catalysts for further growth in the county. Farmers sought an education program that closely related to their agricultural needs, and founded a farmers’ college that eventually became Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). Today, agriculture and coal mining thrive in the region, whose main attraction is Penn State University. Residents and visitors enjoy the university, pastoral countryside, and rich natural beauty of the valley, its streams, and its surrounding forested ridges. The Centre Region is located in the southern portion of Centre County. The region is located near the geographic center of Pennsylvania, approximately 90 miles from the State Capital at Harrisburg, 140 miles from Pittsburgh, and 195 miles from Philadelphia. Main vehicular arteries to the Centre Region include I-99, State Routes 26, 45, 144, 150, and 550, along with U.S. Routes 220 and 322. Several minor state routes and local roads also offer vehicular access to the region. Six municipalities comprise the Centre Region: State College Borough; and College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton Townships. These six municipalities form the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG). Halfmoon Township has declined to participate in the development of the regional parks.

KEY ISSUES

FOR

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKL ANDS

Early in the process, the following Key Issues were identified as needing to be considered:

PROCESS: •

Whitehall Road Regional Parklands and Oak Hall Regional Parklands are the first true regional parks in Central Pennsylvania, with collaboration of five municipalities and the COG. The model for collaboration in the design process established during the design for Oak Hall Regional Parklands has been extended for the planning of the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site.

•

High expectations have been set, based on the quality, collaborative public process included as part of the Oak Hall Regional Parklands Master Site Plan.

PROGRAM: •

A comprehensive review of recreational needs and existing capacity was undertaken to guide the decision making for the Master Plans, revealing exceptional need for quality athletic fields. The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site will play a crucial role in fulfilling these needs.

•

A logical program of activities and the capacity to accommodate them on the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site was preliminarily defined during the Oak Hall Regional Parklands planning process. This study also predicted the resulting expanded flexibility and capacity of existing parks after implementation of the Oak Hall Regional Parklands program, which will influence the choices for the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site. Refinement of these findings with staff, stakeholders, and municipal representatives was a primary challenge for this master plan.

•

While the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site exhibits excellent capacity for sports fields, planning for a logical diversity of complementary activities will be important to creation of a great park.

SITES: •

The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site is spectacular in terms of regional position, size, field capacity, scenic values, and potential for expansion.

•

Vehicular, water and sewer access to the park will pass through a future residential development. The potential timing, arrangement, and character of this neighborhood will influence the park master plan. A future regional bike path connecting the newly acquired Musser Gap conservation area with Blue Course Drive, currently under study, will be adjacent to the park site. Coordination with this planning will benefit both projects.

•

Excellent capacity for athletic fields due to gentle topography, and the required parking to support them, will require extensive capacity to deal with stormwater. Creative stormwater design may allow for less site area to be devoted to conventional structures, allowing more use of the site for athletic purposes.

•

The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site is exceptional in its scenic position with outstanding valley views, although internally it is primarily open and flat. Thoughtful organization will be required to create a beautiful park that maximizes athletic potentials, such that generations of users will find enjoyment here.

•

This master plan must set the stage for implementation. Thought must be given to sewage, traffic flow, and water, and electrical service requirements.

DEMOGRAPHICS Because the Centre Region COG serves residents of several municipalities, demographic studies for this Master Plan were conducted for the five municipalities participating in this study. These municipalities are the basis for the demographic information found in this chapter.

POPULATION TRENDS According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, the Centre Region’s population grew during the 1990s. During the same period, Centre County’s total population grew nearly twice as quickly (see table below). The U.S. Census Bureau provides 2009 population projections (see table) based on 2000 Census information. These estimates project continued but slightly slower growth in the Centre Region between 2000 and 2009. Centre Region Population and Projections (per U.S. Census Data) 1990 Population

2000 Population

2009 Population Projection

Population Change (percent change) 1990-2000

Projected Population Change (percent change) 2000-2009

State College Borough

38,923

38,420

39,898

-503 (-1.3%)

1,478 (3.7%)

College Township

6,709

8,489

9,400

1,780 (26.5%)

911 (9.7%)

Ferguson Township

9,368

14,063

16,616

4,695 (50.1%)

2,553 (15.4%)

Harris Township

4,167

4,657

4,816

490 (11.8%)

159 (3.3%)

Patton Township CENTRE REGION TOTAL

9,971

11,420

13,286

1,449 (14.5%)

1,866 (14.0%)

69,138

77,049

84,016

7,911 (11.4%)

6,967 (8.3%)

Centre County

112,760

135,758

146,212

22,998 (20.4%)

10,454 (7.1%)

Municipality

POPULATION DENSITY The Centre Region’s total area is 127.6 square miles. The population density (per 2000 Census data) is 603.8 persons per square mile. This number is heavily influenced by high population density in State College Borough (8,537.8 persons per square mile). The municipalities studied are either characteristically urban or suburban, and are all at least somewhat densely populated. The lowest population density among the Centre Region’s municipalities is Harris Township (146.0 persons per square mile). Harris Township’s lower population density is due, in a large part, to the inclusion of 9,700 acres of Rothrock State Forest. Centre County’s overall population density (122.1 persons per square mile) is much lower than that of the Centre Region because the County includes large areas of sparsely populated rural and forested land.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND FAMILY STRUCTURE According to U.S. Census Bureau information, the number of family households as a percentage of total Centre Region households increased by 10.7% between 1990 and 2000, while the number of married couple families as a percentage of total households increased by 8.6%. This is attributed to a decrease in the number of single person and non-family households.

Statistics from the 2000 Census indicate that in the Centre Region two-parent families (46.5% of total households) are a lower percentage than Centre County (57.8%). In 2000, the Centre Region averaged 2.39 persons per household (County 2.45); families with children under the age of 18 represented 21.0% of all Centre Region households (County 25.5%); married couples with children under the age of 18 represented 17.3% of Centre Region households (County 20.7%); and lastly, female heads of households with children under the age of 18 represent 2.8% of Centre Region households while representing 3.4% of County households.

AGE DISTRIBUTION According to the 2000 Census, the Centre Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population contains a larger proportion of young adults (not surprising given Penn State Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact on the demographics).

Centre Region vs. Centre County Age Distribution of Population 2000 U.S. Census Population Segment

Centre Region

Centre County

# Persons

# Persons %

Total Population

77,049

100.0

135,758

100.0

Under 5 years

2,778

3.6

6,273

4.6

5-19 years

16,059

20.8

27,761

20.4

20-24 years

23,813

30.9

26,924

19.8

25-44 years

17,465

22.7

35,876

26.4

45-64 years

11,063

14.4

24,947

18.4

65 years & Older

6,181

8.0

14,077

10.4

Median Age

27.2 years

28.7 years

INCOME According to the 2000 Census, average household income in the Centre Region was $35,929. The Centre Region median is slightly lower than the Centre County-wide median of $36,165.

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS In 1990, there were 24,090 total housing units in the Centre Region. By comparison, in 2000, the number of housing units was 28,229, an increase of 17.2%. The average value of owner-occupied housing units in the Centre Region, per the 2000 Census, is $145,132. This is considerably more than the median value of 2000 Centre County ($114,900) occupied housing units. Of the 10,699 owner-occupied housing units in the Centre Region in 2000, values were as follows: Housing Unit Value <$50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,000 $150,000-$199,999 >$200,000

Percentage of Total Units 0.8% 18.1% 34.3% 25.5% 21.3%

The number of vacant housing units in the Centre Region in 2000 was 1,082. The number of renter-occupied units was 14,804, with a median monthly rental of $603. By comparison, the Centre County median monthly cash rental rate, as of the 2000 census, was $565 per month.

CONCLUSIONS FROM DEMOGRAPHIC DATA •

Penn State Students Skew Statistics: The Centre Region’s population density is significantly higher than Centre County as a whole. While the Centre Region’s municipalities are urban or suburban, the population density of the region is very high due to the existence of high-rise apartment buildings primarily rented by Penn State University students. In addition, the proportion of the region’s population in the 5-19 and 20-24 age groups is larger due to the presence of Penn State Students (typically ages 18-22). Further, family households represent just less than half of total households. In most communities, this percentage is much higher. The disparity is due to large numbers of apartment-dwelling, single college students. Per the 2000 U.S. Census, Penn State’s University Park Campus housed 14,447 students, while 19,987 students lived off-campus. The vast majority (13,997) of off-campus students lived in State College Borough (36.4% of total Borough population), while a smaller number (412) lived in College Township (4.9% of total Township population), Ferguson Township (2,938 -- 20.9%), and Patton Township (2,640 -- 23.1%). A small number of students also lived in Harris Township.

•

Growing Population Needs More Recreation Opportunities: The Centre Region’s population grew significantly (11.4%) between 1990 and 2000, and projections estimated continued growth (8.1%) through 2007. Growing numbers of residents will require growing numbers of recreation opportunities.

EXIS TING PARK SYS TEM During 2001, the COG Parks Capital Committee (originally the COG Ad Hoc Regional Parks Committee) was formed to study and recommend options to the COG General Forum with regard to working together to provide larger-size parks that address the shortage of outdoor sportfields in the region. The committee consists on one elected official from each of the five participating municipalities: The Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton. To date, the municipal parks have been acquired and built by the host municipality; the annual costs to program, operate and maintain the parks are then shared by the five municipalities. However, a new approach was needed to address the shortage of public sportfields across the region. Given the land area required for a group of sportfields combined with the high cost of construction, Regional Parks offer an efficient option for the region to provide those facilities to all residents. Discussion and action regarding this option is only possible thanks to the long history of municipal cooperation in the Centre Region. Recommendations set forth in this study are intended to provide the optimal level of recreation facility services to Centre Region residents, given the opportunities and constraints of the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site. To determine the appropriate level of service, one must understand what recreation opportunities are available in the Centre Region today and compare it to projected demand based on the Centre Region’s current population. Recreational opportunities in the immediate surrounding region must also be taken into account. One way of understanding how the new Regional Parklands fit into the exiting park system is to look at parks according to a hierarchy. The National Recreation and Park Association has developed five classifications of parks including: Regional Reserves, Regional/Metropolitan Parks, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks,

and Special Use Facilities. For the Centre Region, we have decided to modify that hierarchy to include the following types of parks: Regional Facilities, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks, and Special Use Facilities.

1) R E G I O N A L F A C I L I T I E S The regional facility is a park designed for either the conservation of natural resources or a destination recreational development. This type of park typically accommodates activities, such as nature study, trail uses, camping, boating, hunting, fishing, or sports facilities with a regional draw. Regional facilities are considerably larger than most park categories and have a 40- to 50-mile service area. Regional facilities in the immediate region surrounding Whitehall Road Regional Parklands include the following (distance from Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site in parentheses):

STATE-OWNED FACILITIES Bald Eagle State Park (29 miles) Black Moshannon State Park (20 miles) Greenwood Furnace State Park (17 miles) McCalls Dam State Park (56 miles) Penn-Roosevelt State Park (17 miles) Poe Valley State Park (25 miles) Poe Paddy State Park (28 miles) Prince Gallitzin State Park (57 miles) R.B. Winter State Park (42 miles) Reeds Gap State Park (31 miles) State Game Lands #33,92,100,103,176 Whipple Dam State Park (10 miles)

MUNICIPAL AND UNIVERSITY FACILITIES OF A REGIONAL SERVICE AREA Spring Creek Park (College Township) Thompson Woods Preserve (State College Borough / College Township) Penn State University Recreation Facilities (serves students and staff) Tudek Park Hess Field Oak Hall Regional Parkland Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Haugh Tract (Circleville Park) In addition to the state parks mentioned above, the Bald Eagle and Rothrock State Forests are in proximity to the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Site. These forests offer opportunities for hiking; wildlife observation and study; and hunting and trapping.

2) C O M M U N I T Y P A R K S

AND

FACILITIES

This facility type serves a large percentage of the local population. Although some people may be able to walk to a community park or facility, most users would arrive by automobile or bicycle. Because of the travel time for most people to reach the facility, it becomes a special destination, and its features and facilities generally reflect this. A community park accommodates several types of activities, and park acreage is usually adequate to provide ample room for large facilities (such as ball fields or swimming pools), group activities, and solitary pursuits (such as hiking or bird watching). A community parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s or facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s focus is accommodating recreational needs of that particular community. Whitehall Road Regional Parklands will fit into this category, serving residents of the surrounding communities. Other community parks and facilities in the surrounding areas are listed in the table on the following page:

CENTRE REGION PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Community Parks and Facilities State College Borough Park Name

Acres

Facilities

High Point Park

6.2

playground, basketball, tennis court, youth ballfield with seasonal soccerfield, picnic tables

Holmes Foster Park

11.0

2 picnic pavilions, 2 playgrounds, basketball court, horseshoes, 2 bocci courts, seasonal restroom

Lederer Park

21.8

walking paths, arboretum, 2 picnic pavilions

Orchard Park

19.4

playgrounds, picnic pavilion, lawn volleyball, 2 tennis courts, adult softball field with seasonal soccer field, youth ballfield, basketball court, bike path, walking path, amphitheater, restroom

Sunset Park

20.0

playground, 2 picnic pavilions, basketball court, exercise trail, horseshoes, youth ballfield, hiking trail, seasonal restroom

Tusseyview Park

4.5

playground, basketball, 2 tennis courts, picnic pavilion

Walnut Springs Park

19.4

hiking trails, nature study College Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Dalevue Park

14.8

playground, picnic pavilion, bike path, basketball, 1 tennis court, volleyball, youth baseball

Fogleman Field Complex

15.0

3 soccer fields, walking path, 2 picnic pavilions, restroom/ storage building

Nittany Orchard Park

6.3

playground, tennis court, basketball, youth ballfield, gazebo

Penn Hills Park (not operated by CRPR)

10.1

youth ballfield, play equipment

Slab Cabin Park

14.0

picnic pavilion, playground, sledding, covered bridge

Ferguson Township Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Autumnwood Park

9.5

playground, soccer field, walking path

Fairbrook Park

29.0

playground, pavilion, 2 basketball courts, youth ballfield with seasonal soccer field

Haymarket Park

12.0

playground, pavilion, 2 basketball courts, youth ballfield with seasonal football-soccer field

Homestead Park

10.0

playground, pavilion, basketball, youth ballfield with seasonal football-soccer field

Park Hills Park

4.0

playground, youth ballfield

Suburban Park

10.0

playground, youth ballfield, 2 tennis courts, basketball, pavilion, bike path Harris Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Blue Spring Park

8.0

basketball, 2 youth ballfield with seasonal football-soccer field, playground, pavilion, ice rink

Eugene Fasick Park

18.3

playground, bocci court, horseshoes, youth ballfield, pavilion, basketball court, nature trails

Kaywood Park

10.0

playground, pavilion, basketball court, youth ballfied

Nittany View Park

9.0

pavilion, playground, walking path, youth ballfield, seasonal soccer field

Stan Yoder Memorial Preserve

15.0

walking paths, nature study Patton Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Bernel Road Park

74.4

Graysdale Park

14.1

playground, soccer field, youth ballfield, pavilion, basketball court, walking path

Green Hollow Park

15.7

playground, pavilion, 2 tennis courts, basketball court, youth ballfield

Oakwood Park

4.3

playground, pavilions, youth ballfied, walking path

Patton Woods Natural Recreation Area

n/a

hiking, dog area, hunting permitted

Woodycrest Park

6.0

playground, basketball, youth ballfied with seasonal soccerfield, pavilion

future park but master plan proposes: baseball field, softball field, multi-purpose field, amphitheatre/concessions, 2 tennis courts, baketball courts, youth playground, tot lot, airport themed play area, 3 pavilions, disc golf, fitness stations, and trails

SCHOOL FACILITIES Middle School sportsfields (Mt. Nittany & Park Forest) Elementary School Sportsfields (Houserville, Ferguson Township, Radio Park, Easterly SCAHS North Building (the Community Field facilities) SCAHS South Building (sportfields, track, tennis courts)

3) N E I G H B O R H O O D P A R K S

AND

FACILITIES

This type of facility serves a very specific purpose. Users can generally be expected to walk or bike to a neighborhood park or facility. Because they are quickly and easily reached, their use tends to be more casual and spontaneous. These parks are only large enough to accommodate a few activities and possibly a small amount of open space, which may especially benefit densely populated neighborhoods. Equipment and facilities may be specifically geared towards children, especially young children. These parks serve as the focus for small, individual areas, generally 1/2 to 1 mile in diameter. Neighborhood parks located in the region are listed in the chart below: Neighborhood Parks and Facilities State College Borough Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Central Parklet

0.5

playground, picnic tables, bikeway corridor

East Fairmont Park

1.5

playground, picnic tables, bikeway corridor

Nittany Village Park

0.5

playground, picnic tables, bikeway corridor

Smithfield Park

1.7

playground, picnic pavilion, half court basketball court

South Hills Park

1.5

playground, picnic tables, basketball court College Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Fogleman Overlook Park

n/a

future

Harris Acres Parklet

2.0

Mountainside Park

7.2

Mt. Nittany Terrace Parklet

2.7

Oak Grove Parklet

2.9

Shamrock Avenue Park

n/a

future

Thompson Woods Playlot

1.8

future Ferguson Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Greenbriar-Saybrook Park

8.0

playground, horseshoe, basketball court, 2 pavilions, walking path

Meadows Park

2.0

playground, basketball court, picnic pavilion

Overlook Heights Totlot

1.0

playground

Westfield Hillside Farm Estate Park

5.5

future Harris Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Country Place Park

4.1

playground, half court basketball Patton Township

Park Name

Acres

Facilities

Ambleside Park

7.1

playground, pavilion, waling trail, open field play area

Carnegie Drive Totlot

0.4

playground

Cedar Cliff Park

2.5

open space

Ghaner Drive Parklet

2.2

playground

Graycairn Park

1.5

open space

Marjorie Mae Park

4.7

playground, pavilion

Park Forest Totlot

0.9

pavilion, playground

Ridgemont Parklet

0.5

basketball, swing set

In addition to the facilities listed on the previous page, the Centre Region Recreation Authority identifies several potential neighborhood parks slated for future development in College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton Townships.

4) S P E C I A L U S E F A C I L I T I E S Individual sports fields, sport complexes, or facilities geared toward activity, such as a racquetball club or fairgrounds, exemplify special use facilities. This type of facility is not typically located within a park. Whether publicly or privately owned, this type of facility serves as a unique destination. Boalsburg Military Museum Centre Region Senior Center Former Ferguson Township Municipal Authority Preserve Hess Softball Field Complex Millbrook Marsh Nature Center Park Forest Community Swimming Pool Stoney Batter Natural Area State College Area Family YMCA Tussey Mt. Family Fun Center / Ski Area Welch Community Swimming Pool Shingletown Gap Hiking Trail Shaner Baseball Complex (Patton Township) Mt. Nittany Conservancy Lands PSU Facilities and Events State College Little League Complex Babe Ruth Baseball Fields

THE ROLE OF OAK HALL REGIONAL PARKL ANDS PARKL ANDS IN THE EXISTING PARKS SYSTEM

AND

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL

We look at the existing parks to gain an understanding of the number and type of facilities that are currently available to residents of the area. This provides some guidance as to the types of facilities we might need in the new parks. With each category of park, physical planning guidelines have been suggested over the years based on that parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s type of use. For example, Neighborhood Parks are intended to serve nearby homes and would require minimal (usually for handicap accessibility) or no parking and minimal buffering between the park and adjacent residential properties. If a field is developed, it might include a simple backstop and be used for unscheduled pick-up games by kids from nearby neighborhoods. If a shelter is built, it should be fairly small to again serve the needs of nearby neighbors. Access can be through a pathway or neighboring street given most users walk or bike to the park. When developed in this manner, neighborhood parks are rarely in conflict with nearby homes and are an asset to the neighborhood. Community Parks, on the other hand, are usually much larger and are intended to provide the kinds of activities that cannot fit into a smaller setting of a neighborhood park. Sports fields are developed in these parks to be scheduled and heavily used by sports organizations. These

parks have a much larger service area, usually the Centre Region in this case, and will require significant parking. Shelters are built larger to accommodate larger family reunions and group picnics because parking is available. Destination playgrounds are developed here, and special events are planned for these larger parks. Roads to the park are ideally collector streets to minimize traffic congestion that might occur if this larger park was located on a residential street where kids might be learning how to ride bikes or chasing after a loose ball. If residential property boarders the park, there is sufficient room to buffer the active areas of the parks from the nearby homes. If there is good road access, adequate parking, and buffers to nearby residential properties, there is usually little conflict with the active park uses found at these parks, even if those sports fields have lighted fields. Regional and Special Use Parks have special characteristics unique to their users. All will draw from a much larger service area. While a nature area for hiking will require a very small parking lot, a swimming pool will require significant parking. Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is a community park that will function as a regional park. Sports organizations have been advocating for clusters of fields to allow them to sponsor tournaments. These tournaments draw people from the entire state. A community day or special festival might draw people from several counties away if well advertised. These occasional events make these parks regional in nature. However, their day-to-day use will be more like a large community park. Based on the study of parks like this one, the regional parklands will respond to people and the environment. That response will take the form of creative and beautiful spaces that will get better over time. The regional parks, if planned well, will become aesthetic, environmental, economic, and cultural assets to the area. In this context, these regional parks will have: • Good access to the park • Adequate parking • Larger facilities (fields, shelters, playgrounds) • Clustered sports facilities to accommodate tournaments • Opportunities for activities not found in smaller parks (dog parks, areas for ice skating and sledding, community gardens, remote control airplane areas) • Buffers to neighbors, if required • Trails • On-site maintenance facilities As the regional parklands are developed, it is hoped that the scheduled field use in the smaller neighborhood parks will be eliminated and those smaller parks will revert back to their neighborhood character. At that point, we believe there will be fewer conflicts between park neighbors and park users as parks function as their size, location and capacity dictate and not by the demand for level field space that currently drives the park uses.

EXIS TING PL ANNING EFFORT S C E N T R E C O U N T Y C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N (2003) The 2003 Centre County Comprehensive Plan included references to recreation opportunities on a county-wide scale. The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan set forth several recommendations supporting the goal of providing opportunities for recreation, cultural activity, and social interaction with existing and proposed park facilities. Recommendations related to recreation in the Centre Region are listed below:

• • •

Acquisition of community or municipal parks or open space areas should be encouraged to be consistent with local and multi-municipal comprehensive plans; Cooperation and coordination of indoor and outdoor recreation programming, facility use, and transportation planning for recreation purposes should be carried out on a county or regional basis between the appropriate agencies or municipalities; and Programming of special indoor and outdoor recreation activities must be provided for persons with special needs.

CENTRE COUNT Y GREENWAY

AND

R E C R E A T I O N P L A N (O N G O I N G )

Centre County, with funding from the DCNR and the Centre County Board of Commissioners, is currently developing its first County-wide Greenway & Recreation Plan. The Centre County Planning and Community Development Office, serving as the lead agency on this document, intends for this plan to provide the County’s municipalities with guidance on implementation of their own greenway and recreational facilities. A Draft Recreation and Greenways Map for the Centre Region was made available online via the Centre County Office of Planning and Community Development. This Draft map identified a proposed trail along Whitehall Road Regional Parkland.

C E N T R E R E G I O N C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N (2000) Among the goals set forth in the 2000 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan are the following, which relate to parks, open space, or general recreation: • •

Balance community growth while protecting and enhancing the Centre Region’s environmental, historic, and cultural resources; and Obtain additional parkland and open space areas and provide a broad range of recreation opportunities.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends several policies to support this goal. These include the following:

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES • • • •

Preserve steep slopes and topographic features of the region during the planning and development process; Protect floodplains, wetlands, and stream corridors within the Spring Creek and Spruce Creek watersheds; Protect the quality of the region’s ground-water resources through efficient and effective land use management; and Promote effective and environmentally-sound stormwater management practices.

OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION POLICIES • •

Develop cooperative strategies between municipalities and private recreation and sports organizations to acquire land for use as regional sports facilities; and Develop, with the support of the Centre Region municipalities, municipal park plans.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICIES •

Maintain the use of individual on-lot or community on-lot sewage disposal systems outside the Regional Growth Boundary; and

•

Meet the recreational needs of the Centre Region’s growing population by identifying the types and location of parks required to serve residents.

SPRING CREEK WATERSHED PL AN - PHASE 1 The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site lies within the Spring Creek watershed. The Spring Creek Watershed Plan distills numerous existing plans, research, and data into a clear and concise statement of the challenges facing the watershed and recommends ways that its citizens can meet the challenges in its future. The recommendations set forth by the watershed plan that most closely relate to the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Master Plan include those addressing land use and water resources. Such recommendations are listed below: • • •

Encourage stormwater best management practices (BMP’s); Implement stormwater BMP retrofits; and Educate the development community (in this case, the Centre Region COG).

These recommendations are solutions for the challenge of unnecessary increases in impervious surfaces that result in increased runoff into streams in the Spring Creek watershed. The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is an example of a new development that will include some impervious surfaces. Recommendations, such as those above, are especially important in park development because a park can serve as a high-profile example of environmentally-sensitive design.

CENTRE REGION COMPREHENSIVE RECREATION, PARK, (1986)

AND

OPEN SPACE STUDY

The Centre Region Parks and Recreation Agency completed a Comprehensive Recreation, Park, and Open Space Study (Recreation Study) to determine the recreational needs of the Centre Region and to offer recommendations which the Region should follow in expanding and improving park and recreation programs and facilities to meet future needs. The Recreation Study set forth an Action Plan that included short-term and long-term recommendations. Those recommendations relevant to this study are summarized below:

SHORT-TERM PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • •

Submit Agency goals and objectives for official adoption into [regional] comprehensive planning documents; Research and discuss provision of recreation facility development using a regional approach; Municipalities should establish guidelines and terms concerning desirable land dedicated for recreation purposes; Become familiar with the Bureau of Recreation and Conservation’s publication “Adding Parkland to Your Community through Mandatory Dedication”; Increase the Centre Region Parks and Recreation Department’s visibility via advertisement; and Implement more programs for senior citizens as well as handicapped and special needs groups.

LONG-TERM PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS • •

•

Conduct a feasibility study for an indoor community recreation center; Establish the COG/CRPR as the “clearinghouse” for all park proposals and development that might occur in any of the region’s municipalities; Expand playfield facilities at large community parks (i.e. Spring Creek Park and Graysdale Park);

• •

Assess recreational need and demands of citizens at minimum every 4 years; and Prepare a feasibility study for the expansion of existing bikeways to link existing parks as well as link with a future community center.

O A K H A L L R E G I O N A L P A R K L A N D (2009) The goals of this Master Plan include to: 1. Accommodate a program of active recreation. 2. Provide a program of complementary recreation activities. 3. Respect the opportunities and limitations of the site. 4. Respect the adjacent community. 5. Create a beautiful and dignified park space that will improve over the years, find acceptance in the community, and become a valued asset to the region. A primary decision of the Master Plan was the conclusion that soccer fields could be better accommodated at the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands, with Oak Hall Regional Parkland best serving as a setting for softball fields. Proposed recreation facilities at this site include: • • • • • • • • • •

Three adult softball fields Practice field Restrooms and concessions Storage Picnic shelters Trails Playground Sand volleyball court Dog park Sledding hill

During this study, a capacity diagram was developed for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands in order to determine which needed recreation facilities fit best at each site.

This capacity diagram provided the basis for development of the Master Plan for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands.

H E S S S O F T B A L L F I E L D C O M P L E X F E A S I B I L I T Y S T U D Y (2009) The goal of this report is to provide the COG Forum with sufficient information to make several policy decisions regarding Hess Softball Field Complex. The Complex is a 21-acre site located at 1707 Shingletown Road in Harris Township and includes: • • • • • •

four softball fields restrooms concession building with press box an umpires building spectator and picnic areas over four acres of grass parking

The report recommended that the COG purchase the Complex and either the COG maintains and the SCSA operates the facilities or the COG maintains and operates the facilities. Several facility upgrades were also recommended and are included on the following map.

Improvements were identified as: • • • •

Improvements of Immediate Concern, issues related to safety that need to be addressed before opening as a CRPR facility Short-term improvements related to safety and playability that impact use Mid-term needs that can be deferred, and Long term needs that would enhance the facility

The discussion regarding acquisition of Hess Field continued through the development of this master plan, culminating in the acquisition of the property in the fall of 2010. When the program was developed for Oak Hall Regional Parklands and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands, the assumption was that Hess Field would provide four softball fields to meet demand from those users. Therefore, the acquisition had little impact on programming for the two Regional Parklands. However, there were other aspects of the Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan that were impacted by acquisition of Hess Field. The most obvious was the financial impact. With limited total funds for capital improvements for regional park development, investment in improvements to Hess Field resulted in less money for the other two parks. There has been much discussion about the actual cost of Hess Field development and the ultimate impact on capital budgeting. This will become clearer as the Master Plan for Hess Field is completed and addresses costs and phasing recommendations.

BENEFICIAL RE-USE PROJECT The University Area Join Authority (UAJA) is developing a water distribution system that provides water that has been run through a reverse osmosis process and made usable. Although the water is ultra pure, it is warmer than trout stream temperatures, preventing the water from being discharged into the local streams. The plan is to pipe the water up the Slab Cabin Run valley to land near the Whitehall Road Regional Parkland and use it to indirectly recharge the aquifer above a municipal well site. The waterline would be constructed very close to the park site. This water is currently being used to irrigate the Centre Hills Country Club and would be an excellent source of water for irrigating the 15 sportfields at the Whitehall Road Regional Parkland.

MUSSER GAP TRAIL PL ANNING The Musser Gap trail project involves the construction of a new trail that will eventually connect the ‘urbanized portion’ of the State College Area with Rothrock State Forest. The current alignment begins at the parking lot of the recently acquired Bureau of Forestry property and continues west along the edge of the SR 45 right of way for approximately 1000 ft to a road crossing of SR 45. After crossing SR 45 the trail continues on PSU property and crosses Slab Cabin Run prior to climbing to the terminus of an existing gravel farm lane. This lane will eventually become the extension of the trail system that connects to the future Whitehall Road Parklands. The project is currently awaiting final clearance of archeological studies prior to beginning final design.

PENNDOT PL ANNING COURSE DRIVE

FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO

WHITEHALL ROAD

BLUE

PennDot recently unveiled preliminary plans to widen Whitehall Road to three lanes from South Atherton Street to West College Avenue. The ROW will be widened in some locations. The Plans also call for improvements at the Blue Course Drive intersection to include traffic signal improvements and setting aside additional space for trail use. As we were developing the Master Plan there were conversations with PennDot about the impact of the park development on the Whitehall Road improvements. Once there is a better understanding of the timing and magnitude of phase one development for the park, more conversations with PennDot and municipal representatives will occur.

Chapter 2: Site Inventor y & Analysis

Chapter 2: 1:

Community Site InventorBackground y & Analysis

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKL ANDS Context provided by the community’s history, demographics, and existing park system help to identify community-wide recreational needs. Public input further defines these needs. The site inventory and analysis discussed in this chapter identifies the extent to which the park site meets, or potentially could meet, those recreational needs. This Master Plan studies built and natural features of the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands property, such as zoning, utilities, topography, soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Knowledge of such features aided in identifying feasibility of potential recreation facilities on the property.

BASE MAPPING Pashek Associates compiled the project base map, shown on the following page, using information from the following sources: • •

A field survey of site topography and features for Lot 6, compiled by Sweetland Engineering & Associates, Inc. dated June 25, 2007 Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Penn State University College of Agriculture and Experiment Station, Issues August 1981

The consultants gathered additional information on site features through direct field observation in the summer of 2008 and fall of 2009. Pashek Associates makes no claims to the accuracy of utility locations or other facilities.

BUILT FEATURES AND SITE INFORMATION LOCATION, SIZE,

AND

LEGAL STATUS

The park is 75.00 acres and is jointly owned by the Centre Region Council of Governments and Ferguson Township. The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands property is located southeast of Whitehall Road. The property is in Ferguson Township. The property will be accessible to vehicles from Whitehall Road via an access easement through an adjacent lot north of the park, land proposed for residential development. In addition to the 75-acre park, this master plan also assessed and planned for land west of the park, comprised of 25.04 acres. About 59.00 acres of land between the above mentioned 100-acre park parcel and Whitehall Road is land placed in a permanent conservation easement.

R I G H T S - O F -W A Y

AND

EASEMENTS

There are two easements shown on the survey. The first, a 50-foot access easement along the northwestern boundary, is to provide future access to Lot 7 to the southwest. The second easement is a 20-foot temporary access easement running through the property on the northeastern side, to accommodate an existing gravel farm lane.

ACCESS Whitehall Road Regional Parkland is not adjacent to Whitehall Road but relies on its access through an undeveloped parcel of land between the park and the road. This undeveloped property is owned by Penn State and will be developed as a multi-family development consistent with the R-4 Zoning classification. The PSU subdivision plan dated July 9, 2007 lists a series of notes that indicate that the developer of that property must provide access to the park with a road that is built to Township standards and will be responsible for improvements at the intersection of Blue Course Drive and Whitehall Road for both the development and park. The challenge for this park development as noted in a memo from Township Manager, Mark Kunkle, on February 26, 2010, is what happens if the park development proceeds the development of the R-4 parcel between the park and Whitehall Road? As the planning for this park continues, PSUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s developer may be identified and arrangements made before construction of the park. However, it is becoming increasing possible with the current economic slow-down, that the first phase of development of the park may take place before the housing development. How costs are incurred for temporary roads, utility connections and improvements to the intersection of Blue Course Drive and Whitehall Road must be addressed as part of the development schedule. A Memorandum of Understanding should be prepared between the COG and the Penn State University to further clarify the partiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of the financial responsibility of the parties relative to infrastructure, namely construction of Blue Course Drive Extension, the proposed sewage pump station and traffic signal upgrades at Whitehall Road and Blue Course Drive Extension. This Memorandum of Understanding should be consistent with the subdivision plan notes and discussions the parties have had about these matters.

ZONING

AND

ADJACENT LAND USE

The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands property is zoned Rural Agricultural (RA) in Ferguson Township. Adjacent properties to the south, east, and west are also zoned Rural Agricultural, while a parcel to the north

is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-4). The park and adjacent parcels are actively farmed. Land forming the northwest boundary to the park, has been designated as a Conservation Parcel. “Public park and recreational areas” is a permitted use in the Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning district. The required setbacks are 50 feet for the northwest, southwest, and southeast boundaries; a 100-foot setback has been established in the northern corner of the property, while the rear yard setback is 75 feet.

EXISTING STRUCTURES

AND

ROADS

There are no structures located on the property. The parcel is bisected by two gravel farm lanes, used to access farm properties surrounding the park. There is a temporary access easement on the more northern lane. No easement exists for the lane that is more centrally-located.

EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The property currently contains no recreational facilities. However, a new regional bike path that will connect Musser Gap with the Borough of State College will pass adjacent to the park site, with excellent opportunity for integration.

SITE HISTORY

AND

CONTEXT

The site sits within the broad ridge-and-valley settlement pattern of rectangular road system, agricultural fields, and linear towns. The site was once part of a large estate farm that occupied a favorable position with water and excellent soils.

ABANDONED MINE LANDS A review of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s EMap database (http://www.emappa. dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm) indicates that no past mining activity has been recorded on the property.

UTILITIES Identifying existing utilities on the property helps distinguish opportunities for proposed recreation activities that may require electricity, sewer, etc. In addition, the following Acts require anyone who engages in any type of excavation or demolition to provide advance notice: • • • •

Underground Line / Facilities Damage Prevention Act of 1996 (the “Act”); OSHA Standard 1926.651 (revised 1990); Federal Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended protecting underground liquid (CFR 49, Part 195) and natural gas (CFR 49 Part 192.614) pipelines; and National Electric Safety Code, ANSI C-2 (revised 1997).

In Pennsylvania, PA Act 287 as amended by Act 187 of 1996, 73P.S. § 176 et. seq. requires “notice in the design or planning phase of every work operation that involves the movement of earth with powered equipment.” The PA One Call System, Inc. has been established as a non-profit organization to facilitate

requests for utility information. Therefore, PA One Call System, Inc. (1-800-242-1776) was contacted during the inventory and analysis phase to determine if and which utilities are in the vicinity of the park. PA One Call System, Inc. responded via their automated response service, Serial Number 20090771353 (Ferguson Township). Utility companies then responded directly as is shown in the following chart:

PA One-Call Responses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Property (Serial # 20090771353) Utility Company

Address

Allegheny Power Company

2800 E. College Avenue State College, PA 16801

Columbia Gas of PA, Inc.

Southpointe Industrial Park 501 Technology Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317

Comcast Cable Communications 3147 Research Drive State College, PA 16801

Penn State University

Wastewater Treatment Plant University Drive University Park, PA 16802

Borough of State College

243 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801

State College Borough Water Authority

1201 West Branch Road State College, PA 16801-7697

University Area Joint Authority

1576 Spring Valley Road State College, PA 16801

Verizon 201 Stanwix Street, Pennsylvania, Inc. 4th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Clear No Facilities Conflict Lines Nearby Clear No Facilities

Ferguson Township

Windstream Pennsylvania, Inc.

Response

Clear No Facilities Clear No Facilities Clear No Facilities Marked

Clear No Facilities Conflict Lines Nearby Clear No Facilities

Contact Office Personnel

Timothy M. Petrina

1-800-COMCAST

Mark Kunkle mkunkle@twp.ferguson.pa.us Kevin Hahn kxh22@psu.edu Thomas J. Fountaine, II boro@statecollegepa.us Steve Albright steve@scbwa.org

Richard Lahr

Office Personnel

www.windstream.com 1-877-807-WIND

A University Area Joint Authority sanitary sewer line exists northwest of the site across Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. When Parcel 4 is developed for multi-unit residential living, sewer and water will be extended to the border of the park parcel.

NATURAL FEATURES WATER FEATURES

AND

WETL ANDS

The site slopes largely to the northwest, toward Parcel 5, designated as a conservation parcel. A small portion of the northeastern part of the park flows to the same drainageway in a northeasterly direction. There do not appear to be any wetlands on the site.

SOILS Soils help determine appropriate land use and development for any property. For the Master Plan, Pashek Associates reviewed the Soil Survey and lists of hydric soils for Centre County. Hydric soils are one of three criteria used to identify jurisdictional wetlands in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The following chart describes the properties of soils found on the park property according to the soil survey and identifies any hydric qualities in those soils. Soils with a classifications of A and / or B are generally suitable for infiltration, and soil classifications of C and / or D are generally unsuitable for infiltration. Soils Inventory - Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Property Drainage

Hydric Soil?

Hydrologic Classification

Limitations to Site Development

Well Drained

none

Moderate erosion hazard, clayey subsoil, potential for sinkholes

Lindside Soils (Lx)

Moderate

Hydric component (Atkins)

Hagerstown Silt Clan Loam, 3-8% slope (ItcB)

Well Drained

None

Opequon-Hagerstown Complex, 3-8% slopes (OhB)

Well Drained

none

Soil Type (Map Symbol) Hagerstown Silt Loam, 3-8% slopes (HaB)

Slight erosion hazard, flooding, seasonal high water table

Moderate erosion hazard, shallow depth to bedrock, clayey subsoil, potential for sinkholes

The standard classifications for these types of soils at the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands suggest that

on-site waste disposal may be a challenge without looking into sand mounds or other mitigating strategies. However, the CMT Soils Investigation described in the Soil Investigation Section suggests that the soils may be suitably well drained for on-lot septic fields.

SOIL INVESTIGATION On December 16, CMT Labs of State College observed the excavation of 13 test pits on the park site. Ferguson Township provided the equipment and operator. The following is a summary of the findings. The complete assessment, including test pit logs, are in the Appendix of this report. The test pit observations confirm the presence of residual soils and carbonate bedrock consistent with the mapping. With the exception of a few suspected limiting soil layers, the majority of the soils at the site appear well-drained and exhibit moderate to good soil structure and macropore (i.e., root channels, earthworm burrows, etc.) Frequency. In general, the upper 30 inches of the soil profile appeared more permeable than the deeper soils at the site. We believe that where adequate soil thickness exists, further investigation for stormwater/septic disposal purposes may be warranted. For stormwater disposal purposes, we recommend that an investigation in general accordance with Appendix C of the December 2006 PADEP Stormwater BMP Manual, be conducted. In addition, the design professional may consider reviewing section 7.4 of the BMP Manual prior to the investigation. This section discusses stormwater management in “Karst Areas.” Septic disposal investigations are typically conducted by a licensed Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO). The bedrock observed appeared weathered, fractured and capable of being excavated with heavy equipment to depths several feet deeper than the excavation termination depths. From a permeability perspective, the bedrock at the site did not appear restrictive to water movement compared to the residual soils. Excluding the topsoil, the majority of the subsurface materials at the site may be suitable for use as fill materials. However, some of the excavated pieces of rock were relatively large, and may require sorting and/or crushing prior to use as fill. In addition, some of the clay at the site could be “fat clay,” which may limit its suitability as a fill material for some applications. We recommend that fill materials be evaluated for suitability on a case-by-case basis, depending on their intended use. There is a conflict between the County Soil Survey and this more detailed field investigation. Further testing needs to be done to determine if an on-site sewage disposal system would function in the soils in the park.

TOPOGRAPHY Most of the property consists of slopes less than 10%. Much of this area is composed of open field and offers opportunities for recreation development.

VEGETATION Active croplands dominate the property. A forested area of about 4 acres is located in the northern corner of the parcel.

WILDLIFE 30

Limited vegetative habitats, primarily agricultural fields with a single block of forest, and lack of connections to mountain and riparian habitats, presently accommodate low wildlife populations. There is potential for more diverse populations of large and small animals and birds with introduction of vegetative diversity. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Search The Pennsylvania Department of Forestry maintains the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Index. This is a database of known locations of Pennsylvania’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The database and searches are now accessible online at the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. (www. naturalheritage.state.pa.us). A search of the PNDI Database (Search # 20090902208489) indicated that recreation facility development will not impact any federally listed, proposed, or candidate endangered species or species of concern in Pennsylvania. A copy of the PNDI Environmental Review receipt is included in the appendix of this report.

NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS A review of the Centre County Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) indicated that no natural heritage areas are located on or immediately adjacent to the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands property.

OTHER SITE FACTORS Other factors that may affect placement of recreation facilities on the site include: climate; orientation; views; and noise.

CLIMATE The site is situated along the Tussey Mountain Valley. This position exposes the site to gentle summer breezes, but also to cold northwesterly winds in the fall, winter, and spring.

ORIENTATION The property’s predominantly north /northwestern orientation will result in cooler slopes, resulting in longer persistence of snow in winter months.

VIEWS The site’s upland location within the valley affords spectacular views of Tussey Mountain to the east.

NOISE Traffic from Whitehall Road Regional Parklands should not impact recreation uses.

CONCLUSIONS After analysis of the various features of the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site, we have concluded that the site presents the following opportunities and limitations with regards to recreational park development:

OPPORTUNITIES 1. An outstanding regional setting exists at the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site, resulting from access and views that create particular opportunity for identity and sense of place. 2. 100 total acres of open fields with gentle slopes offer opportunity to create a significant complex of athletic facilities. 3. The forested land area on the perimeter offers potential for complementary park use. Adjacent future conservation land offers opportunity for connections. 4. Favorable soils, good drainage, and access offer advantages to recreational development.

LIMITATIONS 1. The open valley setting is scenic but lacking in features that create internal character. Landscape development to connect uses and spaces both internally and externally will be required. 2. Access will be exclusively from one intersection. Traffic generated by large events could create congestion at this intersection. 3. The position of the park at the edge of the community may require most users to utilize automobiles to access. The access corridor should be designed to allow safe and comfortable use by walkers and bikers.

& Design Considerations

Chapter 3: Activities & Facilities Analysis

Chapter 3:

Activities & Facilities Analysis & Design Considerations

ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS Long, unmet demand for sports facilities have driven the acquisition and development of these regional parklands with a focus on athletic fields at both the Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands sites. Thus, programming for both sites involved a needs assessment identifying the number and type of sports fields to be planned. Jones and Pashek Associates interviewed representatives of local / regional sports organizations, analyzed responses, created a summary of sports fields needs, identified priorities based on public input, and applied findings to the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands site. This was based on potential for field development at both sites and considering the proposed field upgrades at Hess Field. Interviews with sports organizations and analysis of sports field needs was prepared as part of the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan process and is repeated in this section as it applies for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. Findings from the sports field needs analysis were applied to the Whitehall Regional Parklands site as shown and described by the Concept Plans detailed later in this chapter.

2002 A C T I V E R E C R E A T I O N F A C I L I T Y R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S M E M O In July 2002, the Centre Region Parks & Recreation (CRPR) Board issued a memo setting forth its recommendations with respect to needed community recreation facilities in the Centre Region. The memo stated that the recommended numbers of sports fields, based on National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) standards, would serve community needs through 2010. The memo also recognizes 150 acres of acquisition land and its potential for future recreation development. It was this memo that helped substantiate the need for acquiring parkland for the region to meet sports field needs. To make such recommendations, the CRPR Board reviewed field and court requests from sports councils and organizations, prior field need projections, and regional tournament requests. In the memo, the Board also recognized the need for associated parking, maintenance of fields, irrigation of turf fields, regional cooperation in funding efforts, and acquisition of additional parklands and facilities. The recommendations of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;2002 Memoâ&#x20AC;? were taken into account during the sports field analysis performed as part of this Master Plan.

S P O R T S F I E L D S N E E D S A N A LY S I S S U M M A R Y The Sports Field Needs Analysis considers how many of each type of sport fields will be needed to support present and growing competitive and recreational league play. Diamond shaped fields allow for various levels of baseball and softball teams, while rectangular fields can provide for soccer, football, lacrosse, and field hockey. The consultant arrived at an estimated number of each type of fields that will need to be developed within the region based on the analysis of the following:

• • •

An inventory of existing fields to establish the “supply” A list of all field users Discussions with each group to determine, by age group, the “demand”: o Hours of practice o Number of practices / week o Number of teams o Information on unmet needs of existing facilities o Hours per game o Number of games / week o Information on participation rate trends

This analysis provided the consultant with statistical and anecdotal information to base field needs for the region. This could then be compared to the 2002 Needs memo from the CRPR, national standards, and requests from the various sports organizations. The practice and game field analysis spreadsheets are included in the Appendix of the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan. The following summary table tracks the various inputs leading to a recommendation for new fields for rectangular and diamond-shaped fields. SPORTS FIELD DEMAND AND SUPPLY ANALYSIS (Surplus +, Deficit -)

Sports Facilities

1988 National Standards(1) (62,600 people)(2) Need

Have(4)

Surplus/ Deficit

Time Slot Analysis(5)

Sports Group Requests

Recommendations(3)

Baseball

-4

+3(6)

3-4

2 larger fields and 1 challenger field(7)

Softball

-4

-11

-4

4-6 fields(8)

Soccer

-12

-7

-5

6-8+(9)

5-8 fields

Football/Lacrosse/ other rectangular fields

None identified

-10

-1

1 multi-purpose rectangular field

(1)

(2) (3) (4)

2002 CRPR Memo(10)

The 1988 National Standards for field needs, based on population, suggested 1 baseball field/2500 people and 1 soccer or softball field/5000 people. Lacrosse was not included in the standards. Years ago, Pashek Associates modified the standard by suggesting a demand of 1 soccer or softball field/2500 as more reflective of field use in our area. That is the standard referenced in the table. In 1995, NRPA developed an analysis of demand for sports by using a “level of service” analysis. The time slot analysis reflects that type of assessment. We offer both for comparison purposes. The population used for the region was provided by Centre Regional Planning Agency and excludes students living on campus. These recommendations are based on today’s needs and do not provide for growth in sports participation, nor do we include enough fields to allow for resting a field (20% of supply). It is challenging to establish an accurate number of existing fields available to meet demand given the multi-use nature of many fields. We have attempted to pro-rate the multi-use fields (which is 65% of all fields) to arrive at a full-time equivalent. Our analysis shows 19 municipal fields, 27 private fields, and 20 school fields. The demand and supply calculation assumes all 27 private fields continue to be available and that there will be no school expansion or contraction that impacts those 20 fields. This fact alone establishes the need for more sports fields at the regional parks.

(5)

This analysis was done for both practice times and game times to compare field needs. Factors included for the practice time slots were: hours for each practice, practices per week, # of teams, full-time equivalent fields used resulting in a calculation of time slots needed, weekly time slots available, whether a surplus or deficit of time slots was created, and a calculation as to how that time slot equates to field needs. A similar analysis was conducted for game times. This analysis did not factor in the need for additional time slots resulting from rainouts (more relevant in the game time slots analysis). CRPR staff assisted in providing detailed information for most sports leagues, such as numbers of teams, number of players, fields used, and schedules. They also provided contact information for the sports organizations we interviewed. (6) Although our initial analysis shows a surplus of fields, we have found that there is a surplus of under-sized fields and a shortage of larger fields. (7) Challenger fields are fields designed to meet the needs of disabled participants. The fields are usually with a synthetic surface. Each participant usually has a “buddy” to help with activity. (8) Assume the four fields at Hess Field remain part of the supply. (9) Soccer provided a request for two soccer complexes, with one complex containing 6-8 full sized fields and no request for number of fields for the second complex. (10) This memo was one of the first widely distributed documents attempting to quantify field needs. See the Appendix for a copy of this memo.

Field use above assumes daylight use only. Need for field lighting to extend field use time was not analyzed. Lighting might extend use, requiring fewer facilities. Lighting also is often required of tournament facilities to get as many games in as is possible over a weekend. However, public opinion, especially of nearby residents, was sharply opposed to creating lighting in this very rural environment in Oak Hall and may be a concern of residents near Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. The CRPR discussed lighting fields, and decided that lighting is an issue that can be dealt with in the future. Installation of empty conduit for future lighting wiring was discussed as a good design practice with electrical service sized to meet lighting needs, should they be added to the fields in the future. The committee met with a lighting representative to review lighting of intramural fields at Penn State and were impressed with the new technology of focusing light down, on the field and minimizing light dispersion toward adjacent property owners. It should also be noted that all analysis points and calculated numbers of needed fields above assume the continued use of fields at the Hess Complex. During the development of this Master Plan, it was learned that Bernel Road Park in Patton Township will be developed by the Township in the near future. This will add a 375’ diamond shaped field, a 275’ diamond shaped field and rectangular field to the supply side of this equation in the next few years. Also, during this master planning process, discussions were held with the athletic director for the school district. There may be an opportunity for partnering on field development. Therefore, two fields were identified as being needed to meet the high school needs, one for high school games and one for the junior variety games.

FACILITIES ANALYSIS Based on the input from the public process, study group ,and the above Sports Field Demand and Supply Analysis table, the following Proposed Regional Facilities Table was developed. This table shows proposed facilities for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands and compares it to the facilities developed for the other parks sites and total demand.

Proposed Regional Facilities

4 1 7 2

0 3 0 0

Demand Total Regional Hess Field estimated Park Supply in 2008 0 4 3 4 8 6 0 7 8 0 2 1

6 6 1 0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0

6 6 2 1

Not estimated Not estimated

Basketball courts

Sand volleyball courts

Dog parks

Picnic pavilions Picnic groves Restrooms

5 4 2

3 1 1

Concessions stands

Community gardens

Maintenance buildings

Sledding hill

Seasonal ice skating rink

Amphitheater

Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated

Master Plan at Whitehall Road

Facility

Baseball Softball Soccer Football/Lacrosse/other rectangular field use Tennis â&#x20AC;&#x201C; indoor outdoor All purpose practice field Open space for unscheduled activities Playgrounds

Oak Hall Master Plan

SPORTS FACILIT Y STANDARD SOURCES Many facilities must comply with specific standards established for their respective activity. Sports facility standards, which must be understood in order to properly locate the facilities being considered in this study, include: • • • • • •

National Recreation and Park Association’s “Facility Development Standards” establishes facility dimensions, orientation, and slope requirements. National Federation of State High School Association’s “Court and Field Diagram Guide” United States Specialty Sports Association, www.usssasports.com, establishes field sizes Amateur Athletics Union of the United States, Inc., sss.aausports.com, establishes field sizes USA Volleyball, www.volleyball.org - establishes court dimensions and requirements U.S. Lacrosse, www.lacrosse.org

FACILIT Y GUIDELINES Taking into consideration the aforementioned standards and guidelines, in combination with Pashek Associates’ prior experience, the following facility development guidelines were created for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands:

SPORTS FACILITIES Baseball and Softball Fields As discussions about the baseball fields took place, the idea of partnering with the High School to provide a Varsity and Junior Varsity field was considered. By including these fields, there may be an opportunity for the School District to assist financially in building the fields. The athletic director suggested that the fields be modeled after baseball fields in White Township near Indiana PA and a field in Hershey, PA. We are also proposing that one of the smaller baseball fields be developed as a Challenger Field. The Challenger Baseball program is an official Little League program. The children have various special needs, physical handicaps and developmental delays. The ages range from 5 to 21 years of age. The purpose of the program is to allow all these wonderful kids to enjoy the game of baseball in a relaxed setting that is supervised by coaches and parents. Each Challenger game consists of two innings. All children bat in their respective half of the inning (no score is kept nor are any strikes, walks or outs). Parents, coaches, family members, friends, all help out and are encouraged to assist the children with batting, fielding, running and throwing as necessary. The children are taught good sportsmanship and very basic fundamentals of the game. Every child hits, runs and scores! • • • • • •

Orient so batter is looking through the pitcher in the northeasterly direction so neither are looking at a rising or setting sun Provide backstop, perimeter fencing, dugouts, player benches, foul poles, bleachers Drinking fountains and trash receptacles nearby Slope field maximum of 2%, minimum of 1.5% unless very well drained site or artificial surface used Provide adequate buffer between field and adjacent uses and parking areas Size fields according to the following standards:

Baseball Dimensions

Required A

Type of Field

Ages

Base Lines

Recommended C

Backstop Pitching Pitching from Home Distance Height Plate

E Foul Lines

Center Infield Arc from Field Pitchers Plate

Major League Baseball (MLB)

90’

60.5’

10”

60’

325’

400’

95’

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

90’

60.5’

10”

60’

330’

400’

95’

National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA)

90’

60.5’

10”

60’

300’ min 350’ min

95’

Pony Baseball, Inc. Shetland Division

5&6

50’

38’

n/a

25’

125’

200’

Pinto

7&8

50’

38’

4”

25’

150’

200’

Mustang

9&10

60’

44’

4”

30’

175’

225’

Bronco

11&12

70’

48’

6”

30’

225’

275’

Pony

13&14

80’

54’

8”

40’

275’

315’

80’

Colt

15&16

90’

60.5’

10”

50’

300’

350’

95’

Palomino

17&18

90’

60.5’

10”

50’

300’

350’

95’

5 to 12

60’

46’

6”

25’

200’ min.

200’ min

50’

Babe Ruth League

13-15

90’

60.5’

10”

60’

250’ min 250’ min

95’

16-18 League American Legion Baseball

16-18 18&under

90’ 90’

60.5’ 60.5’

10” 10”

60’ 45’ r

300’ 300’

350’ 375’

95’ 95’

Tee Ball

5 to 8

60’

46’

25’ min.

200’

50’

Minor League

7 to 8

60’

46’

25’ min.

200’

50’

Little League

9 to 12

60’

46’

25’ min.

205’

215’

50’

Junior League

13-14

90’

60’ -6”

25’ min.

300’

95’

Senior League

14-16

90’

60’ -6”

25’ min.

300’

95’

Big League

16-18

90’

60’ -6”

25’ min.

300’

95’

4 to 8

50’

38’

25’ min.

125’ max.

Babe Ruth Baseball, Inc. Bambino Division

Little League Baseball, Inc.

T-Ball USA Tee Ball

unofficial recommendation

League

American Softball Association Fast Pitch

American Softball Association Slow Pitch

Division

Bases

Pitching

Max. Fence

35’

Min. Fence 150’

Girls - 10 and under Girls - 12 and under Girls - 14 and under Girls - 16 and under Girls - 18 and under Boys - 10 and under Boys - 12 and under Boys - 14 and under Boys - 16 and under Boys - 18 and under Women

60’ 60’

35’

175’

200’

60’

40’

175’

200’

60’

40’

200’

225’

60’

40’

200’

225’

55’

35’

150’

175’

60’

40’

175’

200’

60’

46’

175’

200’

60’

46’

200’

225’

60’

46’

200’

225’

60’

40’

200’

250’

Men Jr. Men Girls - 10 and under Girls - 12 and under Girls - 14 and under Girls - 16 and under Girls - 18 and under Boys - 10 and under Boys - 12 and under Boys - 14 and under Boys - 16 and under Boys - 18 and under Women Men Major Coed Super

60’ 60’ 55’

46’ 46’ 35’

225’ 225’ 150’

250’ 250’ 175’

60’

40’

175’

200’

65’

50’

225’

250’

65’

50’

225’

250’

65’

50’

225’

250’

55’

40’

150’

175’

60’

40’

175’

200’

65’

50’

250’

275’

65’

50’

275’

300’

65’

50’

275’

300’

65’ 65’ 70’ 65’ 70’

50’ 50’ 50’ 50’ 50’

265’ 275’ 275’ 275’ 325’

275’ 315’ 315’ 300’

175’

American Softball Association Modified Pitch American Softball Association 16 In. Pitch

American Fastpitch Association

League

American Fast Pitch Association Slow Pitch

Women

60’

40’

200’

Men

60’

46’

265’

Women

55’

38’

200’

Men

55’

38’

250’

10 & Under

35.ft

60 ft.

150 ft.

175 ft.

12 & Under

38 ft.

60 ft.

175 ft.

200 ft.

14 & Under

40 ft.

60 ft.

175 ft.

200 ft.

16 & Under

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

18 & Under

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

Division

Pitching

Min. Fence

Max. Fence

12” Men

50 ft.

65 ft.

300 ft.

16” Men

50 ft.

65 ft.

225 ft.

16” Women’s

50 ft.

65 ft.

235 ft.

Women’s Class ‘A’ Women’s Class ‘B’

50 ft.

65 ft.

275 - 325 ft.

50 ft.

65 ft.

275 - 325 ft.

Women’s Class ‘C’

50 ft.

65 ft.

250 - 325 ft.

Women’s Class ‘D’

50 ft.

65 ft.

250 - 325 ft.

8 & Under

34 ft.

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

9 & Under

34 ft.

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

10 & Under

34 ft.

40.ft

60 ft.

200 ft.

11 & Under

37 ft.

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

United States Specialty Sports Fast 12 & Under Pitch 13 & Under

37 ft.

40 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

40 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

14 & Under

40 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200 ft.

15 & Under

40 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200-225 ft.

16 & Under

40 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200-225 ft.

18 & Under

40 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200-225 ft.

23 & Under United States Specialty Sports Fast Pitch Women

43 ft.

46 ft.

60 ft.

200-225 ft.

60 ft.

200-250 ft.

60 ft.

225-265 ft.

Men

Bases

40 ft. 46 ft.

Soccer Fields • • • • • •

Size varies according to age group: Minimum is 75’ x 45’ (U6 age group); Maximum is 330’ x 195’ (High School Standard) Long axis of field oriented north to south, never east to West Maximum 2% slope, minimum 1.5% slope for drainage Provide a minimum 30’ buffer between field and adjacent facilities and parking areas Provide accessible spectator seating area Size fields according to the following standards:

Soccer Field Type of Field

A Length, min.

A Length, max.

B Width, min.

B Width, max.

C D E Center Corner Goal Area Circle Arcs

F Goal

G Penalty Area

Federation Internationale de Football Association

110 yards 120 yards 70 yards 80 yards 10 yds.

1 yd.

20 x 6 yds.

8 yds.

18 x 44 yds.

110 yards 120 yards 55 yards 75 yards 10 yds.

1 yd.

20 x 6 yds.

8 yds.

18 x 44 yds.

110 yards 120 yards 65 yards 80 yards 10 yds.

1 yd.

20 x 6 yds.

8 yds.

18 x 44 yds.

Notes

National Federation of State High School Associations National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) U.S. Youth Soccer 6 and under

25 yards

20 yards

3 yds.

2 yds.

n/a

4 x 6 ft.

n/a

3 on 3

8 and under

50 yards

30 yards

5 yds.

2 yds.

6 x 12 ft.

n/a

4 on 4

10 and under

50 yards

40 yards

8 yds.

2 ft.

7 x 21 ft.

n/a

5 on 5

12 and under

50 yards

40 yards

8 yds.

2 ft.

7 x 21 ft.

n/a

6 on 6

14 and under

60 yards

40 yards

8 yds.

2 ft.

7 x 21 ft.

n/a

7 on 7

16 and under

70 yards

50 yards

8 yds.

2 ft.

3 x 3 yds from goal posts 6 x 6 yds from goal posts 6 x 6 yds from goal posts 6 x 6 yds from goal posts 6 x 6 yds from goal posts

7 x 21 ft.

n/a

8 on 8

American Youth Soccer Organization 6 and under

30 yards

15 yards

3 on 3

8 and under

50 yards

25 yards

5 on 5

10 and under

80 yards

40 yards

7 on 7

12 and under

90 yards

45 yards

9 on 9

14 and under 16 and under 18 and under

100 yards 120 yards 50 yards 80 yards 10 yds. 100 yards 120 yards 50 yards 80 yards 10 yds. 100 yards 120 yards 50 yards 80 yards 10 yds.

1 yd. 1 yd. 1 yd.

20 x 6 yds. 20 x 6 yds. 20 x 6 yds.

8 yds. 8 yds. 8 yds.

18 x 24 yds. 18 x 24 yds. 18 x 24 yds.

Amateur Athletic Union Soccer Handbook 8 and under

90 yards

60 yards

10 and under

90 yards

60 yards

12 and under

110 yards

60 yards

14 and under

110 yards

65 yards

16 and under

120 yards

75 yards

Football Fields • • • • • •

Size: 360’ x 160’ Long axis of field oriented north to south, never east to west Maximum 2% slope, minimum 1.5% slope for drainage Provide minimum 30’ buffer between field and adjacent facilities and parking areas Provide accessible spectator seating areas Size fields according to the following standards:

Football Field Dimensions

Required Field Length

Field Width

End Zone Width

Goal Width

Sideline to Hash

Collegiate (NCAA)

360’

160’

30’

18’ 6”

60’

High School (NFSHSA)

360’

160’

30’

23’ 4”

53’ 4”

240’

120’

Type of Field

Ages

Professional (NFL)

Midget

7-13

Recommended Measurements

Lacrosse • • • • • •

Size: 180’ x 330’ (preferred) or football field size Long axis of field oriented north to south, never east to west Maximum 2% slope, minimum 1.5% slope for drainage Provide minimum 30’ buffer between field and adjacent facilities and parking areas Provide accessible spectator seating areas Size fields according to the following standards:

Lacrosse Field Dimensions

Recommended

Type of Field

Ages

Field Length

Distance 12 8 Field Restraining Goal Behind Goal Meter Meter Width Line Circles Lines Fan Fan

Center Field Circle

Women’s Women’s (NCAA & US Lacrosse)

100yds

70yds

30yds

8.5’ r

10yds

47’ 9” 34’ 9”

10yds

Girls (US Lacrosse) Under 9

6-8 (level C rules)

50yds

25yds

2m r

10yds

34’ 9”

Under 11

9-10 (level C rules)

50yds

25yds

2m r

10yds

34’ 9”

Under 13

11-12 (level B rules) 90yds

50yds

30yds

8.5’ r

10yds

47’ 9” 34’ 9”

10yds

Under 15

13-14 (level A rules) 100yds

70yds

30yds

8.5’ r

10yds

47’ 9” 34’ 9”

10yds

10yds from SL, 20yds long

20yds from DAL

15yds

20 yds.

Men’s

110yds

60yds

35yds from EL

9’ r

Boys Bantam Division Lightning Division Junior Division Senior Division

under 9 under 11 All Boys’ Divisions recommended playing field dimensions same as Men’s. under 13 under 15 EL=End Line SL=Sideline

DAL=Defensive Area Line May be = competitive

Tennis Courts There has been much discussion regarding the provision of tennis courts in the master plan. Some on the committee believe that the parks are for sports like soccer, baseball, lacrosse and softball. In their view, tennis can be provided in a small amount here or in other parks. However, a number of tennis enthusiasts attended several public meetings and expressed concern that a regional park facility should address the regional needs of tennis by providing both indoor and outdoor tennis courts of a quantity to allow for tournaments. The master planning process went back and forth on this issue, finally showing six outdoor courts with room for a future expansion of an indoor complex. Tennis enthusiasts developed a feasibility study in support of their proposed indoor facility, suggesting that court fees can significantly offset capital and operating costs. Attached to the Appendix is a copy of that report. • • • • • •

Doubles courts: 36’ x 78’ with a 60’ x 120’ total playing area 10’ to 12’ spacing between multiple courts 12’ high fencing around entire perimeter Max. 1 ½% slope, min. ½% slope; should drain so as to not give either side an advantage One 8’ players bench per court Water fountain nearby

All Purpose Field • •

Variable size Maximum 2% slope, minimum 1.5% slope for drainage

Playground Equipment • • • • • •

Size varies 2-5 age area with age-appropriate equipment and spring rocker area 5-12 area with age-appropriate structure; provide min. safety zones between equipment and other structures (benches) Min. 2-bay swing with toddler and standard swings Manufactured shredded bark mulch safety surface (that meets ADA standards) over well-drained coarse of aggregate Picnic shelter nearby for shade

Basketball Courts • • • • • • •

60’ by 90’ on size with a min. 15’ buffer on all sides Orientation north/south goal to goal Max. slope of 2%, min. slope of 1 ½% Bituminous surfacing with color coating of line and use areas Fencing Can be combined with other court games Water fountain nearby

Volleyball Courts • • • •

60’ by 30” in size with a 10’ free zone on all sides North/south orientation Min. 12” sand or lawn free from holes, puddles or uneven ground Water fountain nearby

OTHER FACILITIES Dog Park •

Fence in larger area for large dogs, smaller area for smaller dogs, preferably 2 acre min. size for entire dog park area • Provide benches, dog litter bags, receptacles for waste, and water nearby • Shade • Shelter • Slope max 5% * It is recommended that the dog park be divided into three or four sections so that at least one area can be “resting” from use at any given time. Picnic Shelters • Size varies • Concrete pad beneath shelter with max 1% slope • Electrical service • Charcoal grills • Picnic tables and trash receptacles • Shade • Easy access to drinking fountain • Level lawn area adjacent shelter for family games Restrooms, Storage Room and Concessions Stands • • •

Size varies according to specific needs Walks leading to buildings may not exceed 5%; provide plazas around for small groups Provide level land for building construction

Community Gardens • • • •

Size varies Storage shed / shelter Rainwater cistern Watering spigot

Maintenance Facility • • • • • •

Provide 50’ x 100’ one story structure Level, fenced in area for storage of material and equipment; double leaf gates Water, sewer, electric Screen from public use areas Fenced in Tree Farm for liner stock Shed structures for cold storage of equipment

Seasonal Ice Skating Rink • •

Size varies Max. 2% slope

Amphitheater • •

Lawn area for seating Large picnic shelter doubles as a stage

SUPPORT FACILITIES Accessible Trails and Walks • • • • •

Perimeter multi-use trail 8 feet wide, interior walking trails 5 feet wide Max. of 5% slope; located and graded in such a manner as to minimize disturbance and erosion Firm and stable surface Rest areas with benches approximately every 5-800’ Adjust alignment to avoid removal of trees

Roadways and Parking • • • • • • • • • •

20’ cartway Road: 10% max. slope, min. 1% slope for drainage Porous paving (firm and stable area for HC parking spaces) Parking spaces 9’ by 18’ with 24’ aisles Parking: 5% max. slope Avoid curbs, drain to swales and infiltration swales/rain gardens Wheel stops Landscaping to break up parking rows Consider security lighting with cutoffs to preserve dark sky initiative Provide HC stalls for both cars and vans

ADJACENCIES

AND

DENSIT Y

FACILITIES

In addition to the preceding requirements, thought must be given to the appropriate adjacency of facilities to one another, and to overall density of facilities in the park. Ideally, it is most desirable to locate facilities adjacent to one another only when they have a minimal impact on each other. For example, a pre-school playground should not be placed adjacent to a basketball court without screening or room separating the facilities. An example of appropriate adjacency is the placement of a basketball court near a tennis court. Each facility serves similar age groups, and both are active use facilities. Proposed facilities were located carefully to avoid overcrowding and prevent excessive earthwork on site slopes.

ADA A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Designing for accessibility means ensuring facilities meet the needs of the physically and mentally challenged, as well as individuals experiencing temporary disabilities. This accommodates not only those with disabilities, but also makes it easier for the general public to use the facilities. Accessibility, in design terms, is described by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in the mainstream of public life. To do so, the ADA sets requirements for facilities to prevent physical barriers that prevent the disabled from using those facilities. When recreational facilities are built or improved with public funding or open to the public, they must comply with ADA standards by providing an accessible route to the area of use and spectator areas.

STANDARDS / GUIDELINES INCLUDE: • •

•

• • • • •

Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, Play Areas, Finale Rule, www.access-board.gov - establishes requirements for playground equipment accessibility. Universal Trail Assessment Process (UTAP), www.beneficialdesigns.com/trails/utap.html - Based on the promise that trails should be universally designed to serve all users; UTAP encourages land managers to provide users with specific information regarding the trail so users can make an informed decision as to whether they have the ability to use the trail. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board’s “Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas”, September 1999, www.access-board.gov - sets minimum requirements for accessible trails, access routes, resting opportunities, benches, utility connections, and trash receptacles. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title II Requirement for Public Facilities, www.access-board. gov Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Handbook for Public Playground Safety” - establishes equipment, use zone, and protective safety surfacing requirements. American Society of Testing Materials “Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Public Playground Safety” (ASTM F 1487) - establishes access route, equipment, use zone, and protective safety surfacing requirements. American Society of Testing Materials “Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment” (ASTM F 1951) - defines minimum requirements for accessible protective surfacing materials. American Society of Testing Materials “Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment” (ASTM F 1292) - defines minimum requirements for impact attenuation of protective surfacing materials.

Chapter 4: Sus tainability

Chapter 4:

Sus tainability

BENEFIT S OF SUS TAINABLE PARKS The Master Plan strives to include sustainable design in creating the vision for the park. A sustainable park is one where the natural resources are protected, where wildlife habitat is improved, and when human recreation uses and maintenance practices do not conflict with the environment, but instead enhance them. Sustainable design is a DCNR priority, and they are offering incentive to encourage municipalities to “green” their parks. Recently a $10-million grant program was established to promote sustainable design. Pennsylvania is one of the first states to provide incentives and funding for these practices. Benefits of sustainable parks include: •

Economic: Natural vegetation and plantings with native species provide stormwater and flood control by absorbing and storing stormwater runoff and pollutants. Such a reduction in runoff may prevent flooding, property damage, erosion, and habitat loss.

•

Environmental: Integrating parks with streamside corridors, wetlands, forested areas, and other open spaces will increase its ecological value over time. According to the U.S. Forest Service, one tree can generate $31,250 worth of oxygen, provide $62,000 worth of pollution control, recycle $37,500 worth of water, and control $31,250 worth of soil erosion over a fifty year lifespan.

•

Health and Safety: Researchers from the University of Illinois have discovered that time spent in nature relieves mental fatigue and related feelings of violence and aggression. They have found the more diverse and rich an environment is in natural resources, the higher the learning opportunities are for children.

WAYS OF ACHIEVING SUS TAINABLE PARK DEVELOPMENT MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA The Master Plan recommends that impervious surface area be kept to a minimum throughout the park to reduce stormwater runoff. The width of parking aisles and stalls should be minimized. Stabilized turf, used on close to 50% of the parking stalls on site, allows stormwater to infiltrate into the soils below, and therefore, reduces the volume of stormwater that will need to be managed. Constructing shelters, restroom, concessions, stands, and maintenance buildings with a green roof will reduce other impervious surfaces.

IMPLEMENT RAIN GARDENS / BIO-INFILTRATION SWALES Parking on the park site should include traffic islands containing rain gardens or bio-infiltration swales. Rain gardens are shallow planted swales that help to retain, filter, and infiltrate stormwater runoff into the underlying soil rather than channeling it into piping systems. The Master Plan recommends the use of rain gardens / bio-infiltration swales in park development. Observation of site soil permeability performed during the site inventory and analysis phase of the Master Plan indicated that the site’s soils exhibit good drainage / permeability. Thus, infiltration of stormwater may be feasible. Further testing may be necessary for verification.

OTHER SUSTAINABLE PARK FEATURES To mitigate surfaces that do not easily allow stormwater infiltration, we are proposing a variety of strategies in the park. In addition to the parking being stabilized turf and structures having green roofs, we proposed three of the rectangular fields on either side of the tennis courts be designed as stormwater detention basins. The fields will be constructed with aggregate base and underdrain lines. Three to one grass slopes will surround the fields allowing stormwater to be briefly stored as it soaks into the ground. We also propose that stormwater be collected from Parking Area A infiltration trenches and piped to a nearby cistern located at the community gardens shelter. A small pump can distribute the remainder to the gardens when irrigation is needed. We are also proposing rain gardens, not only in the parking areas, but at the toe of slopes along sports fields, where grade changes occur. Finally, for optimal use, irrigation will be provided throughout the park. In the near future, a new supply of “grey” water will be available for irrigation, preserving potable water for drinking. We encourage the CRPR explore new “green” technologies like propane powered lawn mowers and vehicles, electric powered construction trucks, wind turbines, solar panels for electrical needs at the shelters, and the planting of native species throughout the park. We recognize with tight budgets that it is difficult to choose more costly “green” technologies when lower cost alternatives are available. However, we believe the CRPR is positioned to be a leader in the parks sustainability movement and can use these technologies to educate other park departments and residents to the benefits of “green” parks.

LEED C E R T I F I C A T I O N One of the most known “green” project certifications is achieved through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system. The LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction (LEED-NC), developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), helps professionals improve the quality of buildings and their impact on public health and the environment. It also reduces operating costs, enhances marketability, potentially increases occupant productivity (in office or other commercial buildings), and helps create a sustainable community. Incentives for achieving LEED certification include: 1. recognition for commitment to environmental issues in the community; 2. third party validation of achievement;

3. qualification for a growing array of state and local initiatives; and 4. marketing exposure through the USGBC website, Greenbuild conference, case studies, and media announcements. Project design teams (consisting of owner and consultants) interested in LEED certification for their project must register online during early phases of their project. The LEED website, www.leedbuilding.org, contains important details about the certification review process, schedule, and fees. Applicants must document achievement of a number of prerequisites and must achieve a minimum number of points on the LEED point scale. The LEED point scale is geared toward construction of buildings. A project such as the proposed park development at Whitehall Regional Parklands contains only small structures such as a concession stand and restroom building. A review of the LEED-NC 2.2 project checklist indicates that approximately 45 of the total 69 points in the LEED point scale may be possible for the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands development. The remaining points (24) apply to office buildings containing more complex utility systems, air quality controls, etc. LEED project certification requires achieving a minimum of 26 points. This is a difficult feat when all 69 points are possible, and even more difficult when only 45 points possible. The lack of a major building in the proposed development decreases chances for approval. Further, park development at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands can be environmentally-sound and incorporate “green” design elements without LEED certification.

SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE The Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI) is an interdisciplinary effort by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanic Garden to create voluntary national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design, construction, and maintenance practices. The SSI and its guiding principles focus on reducing harm done to the environment, as well as preserving and renewing natural and cultural resources when developing or re-developing land. The 2008 Draft of the SSI Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks, available at www.sustainablesites.org, supports the idea that sound land development and management practices restore or enhance natural functions or ecosystem services provided by their landscapes. The SSI sets forth an evolving set of guidelines and benchmarks that serve as incremental steps helping to guide traditional land development and management practices toward sustainability. Through these guidelines, the SSI explores opportunities for initial certification after construction, with re-certification requirements to ensure that the site performs as anticipated over time. The SSI rating system is a supplement to LEED certification programs and those of other green rating systems. The SSI system is based on points and includes several prerequisites, much like LEED ratings. However, the SSI system is focused solely on site design and development, rather than on buildings. The SSI also gives information on resources for many of the design “credits,” which are achieved in order to earn points toward certification. This Master Plan recommends that the CRPR apply for SSI Certification upon beginning the detailed design process for the proposed park development at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands.

PARK SUSTAINABILIT Y GUIDELINES “Creating Sustainable Community Parks, A Guide to Improving Quality of Life by Protecting Natural Resources”, published by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) in 2007, provides valuable recommendations regarding how to implement sustainable practices into design, maintenance, and operations of parks across the Commonwealth. The guide can be obtained from www.dcnr. state.pa.us/brc/GreeningPennsylvania.pdf These practices are based on the following principals:

•

Retain as much of the pre-existing landscape as possible during new construction, including the soil, rocks, native vegetation, wetlands, and contours. This will minimize disturbances, which can open up an area to invasive species. It can also keep costs down, as fewer new plants, soil amendments, and habitat enhancements will be needed.

•

Maintain high quality soils that will hold water and supply plants with proper nutrients. During construction, leave as much existing topsoil as possible. When new soil is brought in, ensure that it is certified weed free, in order to prevent the spread of new invasive species. Using compost and other natural products for mulch and fertilizer will help enhance the soil and feed the native plants. Good quality soil will reduce the need for fertilizers and supplemental watering.

•

Connect new landscape components with the surrounding native vegetation to create larger contiguous areas of habitat. Many wildlife species need large ranges to find adequate food, mates, and shelter. By reducing the amount of roads, parking lots, and turf areas, or by placing these together, habitat quality will be enhanced.

•

Create natural storm water management systems and other green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and swales of native grasses. These systems help to minimize downstream flooding, recharge and filter groundwater, and are more cost-effective and environmentally-sound than man-made systems of pipes and storage tanks.

•

Protect wetlands from disturbance and fill. Avoid placing construction projects, day-use areas, and roads/parking lots near or in wetlands. Natural wetlands provide many benefits to the environment that cannot easily be duplicated with man-made ones.

•

Use integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to minimize the use of chemical pesticides to control plant and insect pests. IPM is an ecologically-based approach to pest control that helps maintain strong and healthy plants. IPM can include the use of traps, sterile male pests, and quarantines.

•

Minimize impermeable surfaces like roads, parking lots, and paved trails. Consider replacing asphalt and concrete with permeable pavement, mulch paths, gravel lots, and native vegetation. Permeable surfaces help to recharge ground water, reduce erosion, lessen flooding events, and filter out pollutants. When impermeable surfaces must be used, arrange them in an area where they will not fragment habitat, make them as small in area as possible, and keep them away from water bodies.

•

Reduce turf to only those areas essential for recreational and other human use activities. Turf offers little habitat benefit and is not as effective as many native plants in pollution filtration, flood prevention, and erosion control. In addition, turf maintenance can have negative impacts on the surrounding environment and can require lots of mowing, watering, and fertilizing. Replace nonnative turf grasses with native warm season grasses, which, once they are established, have lower maintenance needs.

•

Use native plants in riparian buffers. Riparian buffers help to filter pollutants before they reach water bodies, and the vegetation discourages nuisance geese from staying in the area. Roots from riparian vegetation also prevent erosion of soils into the water body and minimize flooding events. Shade from these buffers acts as a temperature control for the water body, which enhances habitat value for aquatic organisms. The food and shelter values of these buffers also enhances habitat. In addition, by selecting the right kinds of plants, the scenic views of the water bodies can be enhanced.

•

Identify and remove invasive plant species whenever possible. Invasive plants have a number of detrimental effects on natural habitats. Most invasive plants grow so densely and spread so rapidly that native vegetation is choked out.

Opportunities for sustainable design in Whitehall Regional Parklands include permeable paving, rain gardens, native species, removing invasive species, reducing the amount of turf, and promoting alternative transportation, to name a few.

GREEN PRINCIPLES

FOR

PARK DEVELOPMENT

AND

SUSTAINABILIT Y

DCNR has recently developed a set of principles to help communities develop practical projects that conserve resources, generate economic and environmental benefits, and become healthier, more sustainable places to live. More information can be found at. The following are the five basic principles: • • • • •

Principle #1: Principle #2: Principle #3: Principle #4: Principle #5:

Maintain and Enhance Trees and Natural Landscaping Connect People to Nature Manage Stormwater Naturally Conserve Energy Integrate Green Design and Construction

A more detailed document describing the principles is located in the Appendix.

REDUCE PARK WASTE The Master Plan recommends that the CRPR expand their efforts to reduce waste from each park. The park should offer recycling containers near each facility or restrooms, concession stands, picnic shelters, individual picnic tables, athletic fields bleachers, trailheads, sports courts, etc. Containers should clearly state what items are recyclable, per local recycling programs. CRPR now has recycling in 5 parks, nature center, and 2 pools. The CRPR may even chose to partner with a local scout group, Centre County Solid Waste Authority, or other organizations to manage the recycling effort at the park. For instance, local scouts could build recycling containers as they have done in Harris Township, or periodically collect recyclables from recycling containers provided at the park by the CRPR (assuming this did not conflict with local recycling ordinances). In exchange for collecting recyclables, the scouts would keep recyclable materials such as aluminum cans, which can be sold for scrap metal.

Possibilities exist at the park site for large-scale composting during warmer months. Composting organic waste from the proposed concession stand, as well as leaves and grass clippings, will produce rich planting soil that could be used in park landscaping if needed, sold to the public, or donated to local organizations such as the Penn State Master Gardeners of Centre County. The Master Gardeners hold periodic composting workshops and may be able to provide assistance in composting education and implementation. For more information, the CRPR should contact the PSU Master Gardeners of Centre County - Molly Sturniolo, Coordinator - via the PSU Cooperative Extension (contact information shown later in this section) or via email: mas79@ psu.edu.

DESIGN

AND

CONSTRUCT SUSTAINABLE TRAILS

Trail design is dependent on the trail type, location, and the use the trail will receive. The proposed perimeter trail at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is primarily a walking trail, although bicyclists may use the trail to access the park from Linden Hall Road. Thus, the trail should be considered a Shared Use Path. A shared use path is a facility that is typically removed from the vehicular transportation network, within its own right-of-way, not the vehicular right-of-way. In this case, the path is located entirely on the park property. As its name suggests, many different types of users may be present on a shared use path. Users generally include walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and in-line skaters.

CONSERVE

AND

MANAGE SITE FORESTED AREAS

The parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only sizable contiguous forest area is located on the northeast corner of the park property. The forest canopy in this area is young pole timber of both native and invasive species. The Master plan recommends conserving this forested area, while removing invasive species wherever possible. Only upon forest maturity, still decades away, should the CRPR consider timbering of any kind. The CRPR should implement forest management (for wildlife habitat, removal of invasive species, etc.), as described in the previous section, through the DCNR Bureau of Forestryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Forest Stewardship Program.

Design Process

Chapter 5: Public Par ticipation &

Chapter 5:

Public Par ticipation & Design Process

Together with the inventory and analysis, public participation played a key role in helping Pashek Associates develop the final Master Plan for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. This chapter describes that process. A project study committee, comprised of COG Parks Capital Committee and the Centre Regional Recreation Authority / CRPR Board, led the decision-making process with help from the consultants. The committee offered specific information about the recreation area and helped guide park design. Concept plans represented the initial design ideas. After committee feedback on the concept plans, desired design ideas from each concept plan were included in a Draft Master Plan. The Draft Master Plan was presented for comment at a public meeting. With public comments in mind, the consultants further revised the Draft Master Plan and developed the specific recommendations, cost estimates, and phasing plan detailed towards the end of this chapter.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation in the design process is important in ensuring that the Final Master Plan reflects community recreational needs and is fully supported by local decision makers and members of the community. In 2008, surveys were mailed to a random sample of residents to identify preferences for parks. Over 22% responded. The same survey was also posted on the CRPR website with over 500 responses. Although done as part of the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan, the results are relevant to planning Whitehall Road Regional Parkland. Those results include the following: The top 3 facilities used by respondents are: Paper Survey

Web-based Survey

1. Walk or Bike Paths 2. Used existing facilities (fields, playground) 3. Picnicking

1. Used existing facilities (fields, playground) 2. Walk or Bike Paths 3. Picnicking

The top 10 facilities suggested for the new regional parks Rank

Paper Survey

Web-based Survey

Walking trails

Picnic Pavilions

Shade Trees / Flowers

Playgrounds

Open Space

Soccer Fields

Sledding

Open Space

Tennis

Sledding

Pool

Tennis

Soccer Fields

Basketball

Fitness Stations

Pool

Sports Groups were also interviewed as part of the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan and formed the basis for programming for both regional parks. In addition to establishing a need for specific sports fields, as described in the Activities and Facilities Analysis chapter, the following additional observations were mentioned: 1. To attract tournaments, similar types of fields need to be clustered together. 2. There is interest in developing a “challenger” type of baseball field for kids with disabilities. 3. One of the benefits of providing a synthetic turf field is that play may take place in early spring.

Public Input Sessions – Two open public meetings were held to both inform and gather input from the public on the Master Plan. Study Committee Meetings – The Study Committee is a group of people from the region representing a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. All five municipalities and the school district were represented on the committee. COG General Forum – During the planning process we met five times with the COG General Forum, a gathering of all of the elected officials and managers. They must approve the master plan. Key Person Interviews – Throughout the process, we contacted stakeholders with special knowledge for the proposed park improvements. Many of the conversations with local sports organizations took place through focus group meetings and key person interviews as part of the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan. So the key person interviews for this master plan focused more on the logistics of implementation or policy formation. We contacted the following: -

Paul McClellan, Project Manager for PennDot’s Whitehall Road Widening Project for District 20 (814-765-0465) Paul was able to give us an update on the widening project and how that might impact our project, guidance on calculating trip generation estimates for park use and how those impacts might impact improvements to the Whitehall Road/Blue Course Drive intersection upgrade.

Dick Lahr, Engineer for University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) (814-238-5361) To develop estimates for EDU’s for the park, we talked to Dick about sewage demand and how they would like the EDU’s estimated. Discussion also involved access to an existing sewer along Whitehall Road (requiring a lift station) and a future gravity flow connection to Route 45 (in the very early talking stage). Dick also advised on pipe sizes for sewer lines within the park. Rob Bose, DEP Sewage (570-327-3399) We explored various alternative systems for sewage disposal for the park. Specifically, we talked about composting toilets. Rob advised us that the variation in flows (from inundation on the weekends to little flow during the week) prevented us from using composting toilets.

Jerry Andree, Cranberry Township Manager (724-776-4806) Cranberry Township recently developed a major sports complex along the PA Turnpike. They were very successful in developing partnerships to help finance the complex. The park includes a challenger field. We met with Jerry to go over strategies for fund raising, expectations for corporate giving, in-kind services and the mechanics of floating a bond for park development.

Dan Pacella, CPA, Garvey and Garvey, Inc. (412-734-1691) As we started to explore financing strategies, Dan assisted us in setting reasonable parameters for financing and inflation rates and developing spreadsheets to explore the annual bond costs of various options for park development.

Dave LaSota, USTA engineer (814-674-2650) Dave worked with the tennis group in State College, developing plans for both an indoor facility as well as an area for outdoor courts. These plans were provided to us as part of their tennis complex feasibility study.

Greg Roth, Maintenance Supervisor, CRPR (814 231-3071) Greg provided us with detailed information on how the CRPR manages their maintenance for existing parks. He provided us with breakdowns of staffing (full-time, 8 month and part-time) estimates of man-hours to complete maintenance tasks, and how they handled turf and building maintenance. He also advised us on the building needs for maintenance structures proposed for the park.

The input process culminated in the identification of proposed facilities and their relationship to each other, which the Master Plan reflects. Actual meeting minutes are located in the Appendix of this report. The public process for this master plan focused on the study committee setting policies, recommending designs and funding strategies. Their recommendations were forwarded to the COG General Forum, made up of all elected officials of the participating municipalities. The COG Forum reviewed the master plan at various stages of the planning process. At their July 2001 meeting, they received the master plan from the study committee and forwarded the plan to the five participating municipalities for their review and comments. A final plan was then developed incorporating the municipal review comments and presented to the COG Forum in August 2010 for their adoption of the plan. All COG Forum meetings were televised on the local access cable channel. It has been challenging to arrive at a consensus plan, especially the financing aspect of the plan, given the divergent views held by each municipality.

CONCLUSIONS It became obvious, after meeting with representatives of the various athletic organizations, that there is a significant shortage of diamond and rectangular fields. This shortage has reduced preferred practice time, number of games (especially make-up games), and forced some teams to use unsuitable fields. Some leagues have been forced to limit registration due to lack of field time. Additional meetings allowed us to better understand the capacity of the land, whether through soils composition, availability for utilities and the impact of park development on adjacent property owners.

DESIGN PROCESS DESCRIPTION

CONCEPT PL ANS

Potential design alternatives were generated to allow the project study committee opportunity to consider features to incorporate into a Draft Master Plan. An evaluation of conclusions from the site analysis and proposed program of uses lead to several key assumptions: 1) The priority for uses on the site is athletic facilities. 2) Based on the conclusion that the Oak Hall Regional Park will primarily accommodate diamond fields for softball, the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands will focus on rectangular fields and tennis. 3) Secondary uses will complement the athletic facilities. 4) Favorable conditions will allow for active uses on most of the site, areas to the east that are forested and include moderate topography will be devoted to secondary complementary activities. 5) The large site of open fields will require deliberate spatial organization of circulation, core uses, and new vegetation to create a park with unified character, comfortable use, and park like beauty. 6)

The 25-acre parcel under option will be acquired and planning will proceed for a 100-acre park.

Three concept alternatives were considered and compared. All plans are similar in program, use of central core areas for parking, services and complimentary uses, a rectilinear layout, and use of trees for shade and unity. The plans vary in circulation pattern and organization of athletic fields and support facilities.

Improvements for each concept are shown in the chart on the below:

CONCEPT #1

CONCEPT #2

CONCEPT #3

CONCEPT PLAN CONCLUSIONS The study committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reaction to the concept plans was mostly positive. The primary difference was the park road layout. It was determined generate a new concept, Concept 4, which offered the most recreational benefits and fit best within the site. This layout allowed direct access to facilities without crossing a park road for the southern fields. This alternative had less road than several concepts.

CONCEPT #4

CONCEPT COMPARISONS Improvements

Concept # 1

Concept # 2 Concept # 3 Concept # 4

Retainage of existing forested area of the site

Yes

Enhancement of the local rural aesthetic by retaining and expanding upon existing hedgerows

Yes

Proposed large ball fields (300’ baselines and 350’ center field)

Proposed small ball fields (200’ baselines and 250’ center field) Proposed rectangular fields (330’ x 195’)

2 9

2 10

2 9

3 11

6 2 2 0 Several 1 2 Yes Yes Several Yes Yes No Yes

6 2 2 0 Several 1 2 Yes Yes Several No Yes No Yes

6 2 3 0 Several 1 2 Yes Yes Several Yes Yes No Yes

6 outdoor 6 indoor 2 2 2 Several 2 2 Yes Yes Several No Yes Yes Yes

South Half 125 spaces Yes

Center 125 spaces Yes

Proposed tennis courts Proposed playgrounds Large shelters Medium shelters Smaller shelters in view of the sports fields Proposed basketball / volleyball court area Proposed restrooms / concession facilities Proposed community gardens Proposed dog park Casual picnic opportunities as individual picnic tables Proposed sledding hill Large unprogrammed lawn areas Proposed amphitheatre Proposed perimeter trail Proposed park access road straight through the site Proposed four parking lots each with: Proposed maintenance facility

Northern Boundary North Half 125 spaces 175 spaces Yes Yes

DRAFT MASTER PL AN DESCRIPTION The Draft Master Plan incorporates favorable elements from the three concept plans and addresses comments from the project study committee and the public. General conclusions included: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

The organization of use zones, rectilinear layout and program of activities was endorsed. The circulation system should provide a balance of safety, access, logic, aesthetics and cost. Athletic facilities should be grouped by type to facilitate tournament use. Potential for an indoor tennis facility and multi use sports facility could be accommodated. Nonathletic uses including the dog park, community gardens and primary picnic facilities could be grouped on the east side of the site, utilizing moderate topography and forest. 6) Stormwater design could utilize both infiltration and athletic fields graded to serve as basins.

A Draft Master Plan was prepared and continued discussion by the project committee and the public lead to four Draft Master Plan options. • • • • • • • • • •

An entrance road bisects the site into three sections: two of athletic facilities and one core area of parking, support facilities and complimentary uses. The road creates a “main street” with a series of athletic neighborhoods on both sides. 8 of the 10 soccer fields are located in the central section of the site, along with a practice field. The five diamond fields are located in the western section of the site, as well as two potential rectangular fields. A tennis complex includes six outdoor and six indoor courts. A woodland picnic grove, tree nursery, dog park, community garden and mountain view picnic grove are grouped on the east side of the site. Four parking areas accommodate 800 parking spaces and drop-off zones. Two core greens with playgrounds, concessions, picnic shelters, restrooms, informal play areas and performance areas. A pedestrian system of internal walkways connects to a perimeter path with sitting areas and with the Musser Gap Bikeway. A maintenance facility is located near the park entrance. A system of tree lined streets and athletic fields provide shade, wind breaks, vistas and beautiful spaces.

OPTION A â&#x20AC;˘

This plan illustrates a full sized baseball field (410â&#x20AC;&#x2122; center field) in the southwest corner of the site, with adjustments to other elements on the west side.

OPTION B â&#x20AC;˘

A second building is included on the site of the central practice field for multi-purpose use.

OPTION C •

This plan is the same as option A with no buildings.

OPTION D • • • • •

This plan illustrates an arrangement if the 25-acre option site is not available, and the park size is limited to the 75-acre parcel. Two diamond fields are located on the west side of the site, eight rectangular fields are included and one practice field. Parking is reduced to 525 spaces. The west core area is reduced to restrooms, concessions and picnicking. Other aspects of this option are similar to options A,B, and C.

PARKING STANDARDS Parking must be considered for almost every recreation facility. It would not be feasible to provide the amount of formal parking required for peak use events, such as Softball or Baseball tournaments, July 4th festivities, or other large public gatherings. The COG would be investing substantial funds in capital improvements that would only be utilized a few times each year. Excess parking facilities occupy space that could be used for the development of other recreational facilities. Further, “proper sizing” of parking spaces also minimizes impervious surface and reduces storm run-off. Dimensions for parking spaces proposed in Concept Plans, the Draft Master Plan, and Final Master Plans are detailed in an earlier chapter. Parking Standards for this study were estimated using standards from Pashek Associates’ prior experience with similar projects. The highest possible use rate by players and spectators at any facility is its peak use. A facility’s daily use is 60% of its peak use. Parking should accommodate average daily use while providing opportunity for overflow parking to meet peak use event needs. Parking standards for this study were figured from the daily use rate assuming 2.5 persons per car. Parking for some facilities may vary from this formula, as users may arrive with a higher frequency.

FINAL MASTER PL AN DESCRIPTION GOALS The final Master Plan reflects the following project goals: • • • • •

Environment – Conserve and enhance natural conditions and features. Community – Respond to conditions and needs of adjacent and regional community. Program – Accommodate a logical mix and quantity of park uses. Economics – Maximize relationship between cost and benefits to community. Identity – Create a dignified and beautiful park space that improves over time.

PROCESS OF REFINEMENT The final Master Plan was resolved after consideration of the various Draft Master Plan options with the project committee, the public and Centre Region staff. The Master Plan is a refinement of Draft Master Plan Option 3. Refinement of the Draft Master Plan included consideration of preliminary grading studies, cost factors, and future flexibility.

ACCESS, CIRCULATION, WASTEWATER, STORMWATER Access from Whitehall Road Regional Parklands to the northeast corner of the site proceeds to a central boulevard that provides access to the park uses and parking. Pedestrian circulation connects interior uses with a perimeter trail and the regional bike path. A sewer line connects restrooms to a pump station near the entrance. Stormwater will be accommodated in a balanced system of infiltration and athletic fields that double as basins.

ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS Emphasis on nine rectilinear fields is balanced by a tennis complex and five diamond fields. A centrally located practice field is positioned between two core Greens that provide services including restrooms and concessions. These core areas are also spaces that accommodate play, performance, winter activities and civic functions. If the 25-acre parcel is not acquired, one full size baseball field will be moved onto the 75-acre tract, rather than having two rectangular fields on that parcel.

COMPLEMENTARY USES Opportunities for other uses include trails for walking, community gardens, a dog park, and picnic groves with dramatic valley views. A maintenance facility and tree nursery provide support services.

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION The existing site is open with dramatic distant views. The park is organized to respond to these conditions by creating a rectilinear pattern of outdoor rooms that connect directly to the adjacent agricultural context of Nittany Valley. Proposed rows of trees extend the existing forest block to provide a pattern for the roads, walkways and athletic fields. The Master Plan attempts to create a beautiful, unified space that will satisfy athletic and passive needs and add to the enjoyment of park users.

TRAFFIC MASTER PL ANNING TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for the P.M. peak hour of traffic were developed for the proposed Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan (dated 12/7/09). New trip estimates are shown in Table 1. The trip generation rates were developed from a combination of local trip-making assumptions and data included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. Local trip making assumptions for soccer fields, baseball fields, and tennis courts were adopted as documented in Need and Design for Eastbound Whitehall Road Right-Turn Lane at Blue Course Drive Memo, Dated May 1, 2009. Since a majority of the parkland is anticipated to be used by organized sports groups, no reductions in trip generation are assumed due to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit (bus) trips. The impact of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit (bus) trips to the site is assumed negligible for the purposes of conservatively analyzing vehicular impacts on adjacent intersections.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION Peak hour trip distribution is shown in Figure 1. The trip distribution is based upon existing traffic patterns at the intersection of Blue Course Drive & Whitehall Road and reflects the following: New trips to / from the west on Whitehall Road: 30% New trips to / from the east on Whitehall Road: 35% New trips to / from the north on Blue Course Dr.: 35%

NEW TRIPS DUE TO WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARK The trip distribution estimates from Figure 1 were applied to the new trips estimated in the trip generation task to produce the new trip volumes for the P.M. peak hour for the Whitehall Road Regional Park (Figure 2).

RIGHT TURN LANE LENGTH (EASTBOUND WHITEHALL ROAD) Based upon the Memo, Need and Design for Eastbound Whitehall Road Right-Turn Lane at Blue Course Drive, Dated May 1, 2009, a right turn lane on eastbound Whitehall Road will meet the warrants for installation based on criteria in PennDOT Publication 46, Traffic Engineering Manual. The anticipated design requirements for an eastbound left turn lane on Whitehall Road are as follows: Storage Length = 200 feet; Taper Length = 60 feet Buffer Length = 30 feet

PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS A detailed cost estimate for the construction of an eastbound right turn lane is provided in Table 2. A summary of anticipated construction and engineering costs are provided below: Traffic Impact Study for Whitehall Road Regional Park - $15,000 Eastbound Right Turn Lane for Whitehall Road Engineering – $15,000 Construction – $92,000* Signalization of Blue Course Drive Extension Engineering – $5,000 Construction – $20,000* *Does not include right-of-way or utility relocation costs

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PL ANNING This narrative is presented to summarize the means of stormwater management for the proposed Whitehall Road Park Master Plan located in Ferguson Township, Centre County. The park master plan includes the recreational improvements including athletic fields, tennis courts, volleyball, indoor tennis and playground areas. The park will also provide areas for community gardens, picnic pavilions, and walking paths. Other buildings include restrooms and a maintenance facility.

Stormwater Management Plan

Vegetated buffer strip Stormwater basin Stormwater basin

Stormwater basin

Vegetated swales

Rain Gardens

Infiltration trench

Rain Gardens

Infiltration trenches

Rainwater cistern Stormwater treatment and infiltration

Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan Final Master Plan 7/13/10

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

The proposed site is located on an existing 75 acre parcel of agricultural land currently used for crop farming. The overland slopes across the property average 3 to 8 percent and direct runoff through several closed depressions and offsite to Slab Cabin Run. A site investigation revealed no evidence of concentrated flows in or around the existing property. Due to the large acreage of cropland and shallow depressions, it is assumed that limited stormwater runoff currently leaves this site. There are no identified wetlands on the site. The soils found on the site are of the Hagerstown and Nolin series. The Hagerstown series is a well drained, silty clay loam with a shallow bedrock depth and moderately slow permeability. The Nolin series is a well drained local alluvium with a very deep bedrock depth and moderate permeability and is located along the northern property boundary with the State College Water Authority property. The proposed parkland development includes approximately 8 acres of new impervious surfaces. These surfaces include roof area, paved driveways, paved parking areas, and outdoor tennis courts. A large portion (up to 50%) of the proposed parking will be pervious by using grass pavers, gravel pavers, and/or pervious paving blocks. The additional runoff generated by the increase in impervious area will originate from various locations throughout the park. In general, the stormwater maintenance for this site will include numerous separate retention and infiltration facilities in order to manage impervious runoff at the locations where it is being generated. Shallow open swales along the buffers will be incorporated along with infiltration trenches between certain athletic fields, paved driveways, and parking areas. The estimated storage necessary to address Ferguson Township ordinance requirements is approximately 2.5 acre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ft of water volume. Although the various small retention areas will most likely address individual runoff generators such as a restroom roofs, etc, they will not be able to handle the anticipated flows from large impervious areas. Therefore, several larger, conventional retention and/or detention facilities are proposed at key locations. Athletic fields on either side of the tennis facility are proposed to also serve as shallow basins. In addition, a large water quality and recharge/detention facility is planned for the lower portion of the site below the nursery and community gardens. In accordance with DEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s BMP manual, the bioretention and detention areas will be designed to hold the additional volume generated during a 2 year design storm. These areas will also serve as both retention and detention facilities to address local ordinance requirements for the proposed increase in runoff.

SANITARY SEWER MASTER PL ANNING Sewer Plan

Based upon local sewer authority rate tables and the expected usage for the Whitehall Road Park, it is estimated that 5 EDUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will be required to service the park. This results in an average daily effluent of approximately 875 gallons. The two most feasible options for service include on site septic and connection to a municipal system. Due to possible limitations of the soils for use as drain fields, and the numerous locations that would require septic fields, the preferred option is connection to a municipal system. This option, however, will require the expansion of the regional sewer service area to include the parkland. It will also require a pump station in order to connect to the existing gravity system at Whitehall Road. This pump station will also be required for the future multi-family residential development planned for the adjacent site between the parkland and Whitehall Road. Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan

Final Master Plan 7/13/10

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

The most practical location for the pump station is at a low point within the future residential property. It is recommended that the park sewage infrastructure is built and connected to a holding facility near the park maintenance facility until the residential property is developed and the pump station is installed. The park sewage infrastructure will consist of a main collection line with manholes that will follow the entrance drive. Laterals with cleanouts will connect each facility requiring service to this main collection line.

WATER SERVICE MASTER PL ANNING Water Plan

Water service is anticipated to be from the public source along Whitehall Road. A distribution system will be installed through the entrance easement and along the main entrance drive. Laterals will be installed to serve each of the facilities (restrooms, fountains, hose bibs, and maintenance). A parallel distribution line is proposed along the southern line of athletic fields to provide service for irrigation. This second line may be physically disconnected from the potable water system in the future if the beneficial reuse water source becomes available near the park.

Drinking fountain (typ.) Potable water

Hose bib (typ.)

Future non-potable water source

Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan Final Master Plan 7/13/10

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

ELECTRIC SERVICE MASTER PL ANNING Electric Plan

Underground electric service is anticipated to be supplied from a private utility along Whitehall Road. A distribution system is proposed that will include a main transformer panel and several subpanels in order to efficiently distribute power throughout the site. Facilities requiring power include: ballfield and athletic field lighting (2 locations), outdoor tennis courts and future indoor tennis building, restrooms, pavilion lighting, main entrance drive street lights, and the maintenance area.

Pad mounted transformer

Electric panel (typ.)

Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan Final Master Plan 7/13/10

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

ACCESSIBILIT Y

IN THE

MASTER PL AN

Although all facilities receiving public funding are required to meet ADA requirements, the following is a list of accessible notes that were part of the discussion leading to the final master plan:

1. One of the smaller diamond shaped fields would be constructed to meet the needs of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Challengerâ&#x20AC;? program. This would include artificial surfacing. 2. All parking areas will include accessible parking. Although the intent for the foreseeable future is for aggregate surfacing for roads and some parking, the accessible spaces would be a bituminous paving surface. Parking spaces will have a maximum 2% slope in both directions. 3. The parking areas and streets will not have curbs. Therefore, there will be no need to include any curb ramps. 4. All buildings will be fully accessible. 5. All of the facilities will be fully accessible including accessible routes to every facility, including players benches at all fields. 6. In picnic areas, some of the tables will have overhangs to accommodate wheel chairs. Where benches or stands exist, additional surfacing will be provided for wheel chair bound spectators to sit next to someone in the stands or on a bench. 7. All walks and trails will be graded to 5% or less with a maximum 2% cross slope.

West Core Area - small playground and court games - restrooms and concessions - 68x40’ pavilion (capacity - 160) - one 20x28’ shelters (capacity - 32)

Green Roofs

- vegetated roof on picnic shelters, restroom / concession stands, and maintenance building

- 350’ center field - 300’ baselines

Diamond-Shaped Field

- 185 spaces (8 accessible) - drop-off - perimeter parking - aggregate surface - internal parking - stabilized turf

Parking Lot D

- area for potential large diamond field if 25 acre parcel is not acquired

- 50’ buffer for infiltration of stormwater

7/13/10

Final Master Plan

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan

- 50’ buffer for infiltration

Vegetated Buffer Strip

- 410’ center field - 325’ baselines - field lighting - meets PIAA standards

Diamond-Shaped Field

- 250’ center field - 200’ base lines - one could be challenger field

Diamond-Shaped Fields

- 8’ wide, aggregate surface - 1.7 miles long

Vegetated Buffer Strip

- gravel road - gated at Whitehall Road and Park boundary

- 47% of total parking spaces are stabilized turf - minimally sized stalls and aisles - trees reduce heat island and absorb water - rain gardens in parking islands

Perimeter Trail

Emergency Access Road

Green Parking with Rain Gardens

East Core Area - destination playground - restrooms and concessions - 68x40’ pavilion / stage (capacity - 160) - two 20x28’ shelters (capacity - 32) - seasonal ice skating on lawn - drop-off - amphitheater lawn with shelter as stage area

Rectangular Field (typical) - Soccer, Lacrosse, Rugby, Ultimate Frisbee, Field Hockey, Football

Parking Lot B - 140 spaces (6 accessible) - drop-off - perimeter parking - aggregate surface - internal parking - stabilized turf - 140 spaces (6 accessible) - drop-off - perimeter parking - aggregate surface - internal parking - stabilized turf

- placed downhill of each field - filter out pollutants and infiltrates runoff from fields

Infiltration Trenches

Parking Lot C

- minimal road width - grassed swales to filter and infiltrate runoff

Street Design with Grassed Swales

- street trees - sidewalks - traffic tables at pedestrian crossings

- potential artificial surface - field lighting

- 245 spaces (10 accessible) - drop-off - perimeter parking - aggregate surface - internal parking - stabilized turf - potential artificial surface - field lighting - potential location for future phase multi-purpose building

Grand Boulevard

Parking Lot A Practice Fields

- rectangular fields set in basin to store stormwater during large rain events

Stormwater Basin

- 6 outdoor courts with lighting - drop-off - future phase tennis building

Tennis Complex

- 350’ center field - 300’ baselines

Diamond-Shaped Field

Proposed Musser Gap Bikeway

- 30x44’ shelter (capacity - 72) - Views of the meadow and mountains

Mountain View Picnic Grove

- collects stormwater for garden use

Rainwater Cistern

- 20x28’ shed/shelter - Musser Gap trail head

Community Gardens

Stormwater Treatment and Infiltration

- 20x28’ shelter (capacity - 32)

Dog Park

Tree Nursery

- 30x44’ shelter (capacity - 72)

Woodland Picnic Grove

- 5,000 sf building - 10 parking spaces - outdoor storage area - temporary sewage holding tank

Maintenance Area

Park Entrance Feature

Future Sewer Pump Station

Preserved Woods

- rectangular fields set in basin to store stormwater during large rain events

Stormwater Basin

- interpretive trail loop through Water Authority Property

Future Trail Connection

PARK ROAD BOULEVARD

VIEW FROM PICNIC SHELTER

STORMWATER CISTERN AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

PARKING, BIOSWALE, AND STABILIZED TURF

Chapter 6: Cos t Es timates & Financing

Chapter 6:

Cos t Es timates & Financing

COS T ES TIMATE FOR DEVELOPMENT Pashek Associates developed an opinion of probable construction costs for the proposed site improvements, based on the assumption that the implementation of the facilities will occur through a public bidding process, utilizing the Prevailing Wage Rates. To budget for inflation of costs for future improvements, we recommend a four percent (4%) annual increase be budgeted for all work occurring after 2010. In Pennsylvania, all projects over $25,000 are required to use the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Prevailing Wage Rates for Construction. However, volunteer labor, as well as donated equipment and materials, may reduce construction costs. Centre Region Parks and Recreation may choose to construct some of the facilities utilizing volunteer and/or donated labor or materials. Additionally, alternate sources of funding, including grant opportunities identified herein, may help to offset the expense to the CRPR. Based on these requirements, the opinion of probable construction cost to implement all of the improvements being proposed at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is summarized as follows:

Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

ENTRANCE Item / Recommendation Quantity Unit Minor Excavation (2 locations) 1 LS Minor Removals (emergency exit) 1 LS Aggregate entrance road 2900 SY Aggregate emergency exit road 2800 SY Entrance sign and other wayfinding signs / regulatory 1 LS signs Traffic control signs / wayfinding signs / gate at 1 LS emergency entrance Eastbound Right Turn Lane 1 LS Signalization at Blue Course Road 1 LS Traffic Study 1 LS Utility - Water - 8â&#x20AC;? line 30 LS Utility - Electric/telephone 10 LF Utility - Sanitary - none, using holding tank on interim basis. E&SC / stormwater management / OH / 10% contingency Add 10% for design, permitting and approvals

Unit Cost Total Item Cost $20,000 $20,000 $3,000 $3,000 $25 $72,500 $25 $70,000 $5,000

$5,000

$92,000 $20,000 $15,000 $1,100 $1,100

$92,000 $20,000 $15,000 $33,000 $11,000

TOTAL FOR TEMPORARY ENTRANCE RD AND PERMANENT EMERGENCY EXIT TO WHITEHALL RD

$34,650 $38,115

$419,265

Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

PHASE 1 Item / Recommendation Excavation Park road (20’ wide crushed stone surface) Parking (aggregate surface - 60’ wide isles, 20’ wide lanes) Parking (turf stabilized - 60’ wide isles, 20’ wide lanes) Parking maintenance area (aggregate surface) Perimeter pathway 8’ wide aggregate trail Interior pathways / walks - 5’ wide aggregate Shelter - East Core Area 68’x40’ Shelter - Soccer Fields 20’x28’ (with equipment storage) Restroom / Storage / Concessions (25’x50’) x 1 Maintenance building Covered storage for equipment Security fencing around maintenance area Community playground Large baseball field with dugouts, stands, clay infield mix, fencing, shelter Basketball court Soccer goals and player benches Irrigation Electrical distribution - underground electrical Elecrical distribution - transformers Water distribution - water main Water distribution - laterals Water distribution - meter pits Water distribution - hydrants Sanitary - sewer lines Sanitary - laterals Sanitary - manholes Sanitary - sewage holding tank Perimeter, light duty fence Security lighting along streets and in parking areas Wayfinding directional and regulatory signs Miscellaneous plaza paving Miscellaneous site amenities including picnic tables, benches, and trash receptacles Seeding Trees E&SC / stormwater management / OH / 10% contingency Add 10% for design, permitting and approvals

TOTAL FOR PHASE 1 88

Quantity Unit 290500 CY 9000 SY 12510 SY 8340 SY 3000 SY 3600 SY 7000 SY 1 EA 3 EA 1250 SF 1200 SF 1000 SF 1400 LF 1 LS

Unit Cost Total Item Cost $5 $1,452,500 $25 $225,000 $25 $312,750 $25 $208,500 $25 $75,000 $20 $72,000 $20 $140,000 $175,000 $175,000 $60,000 $180,000 $100 $125,000 $110 $132,000 $50 $50,000 $50 $70,000 $275,000 $275,000

1 1 7 9 3750 5 5850 1575 4 2 2025 565 5 1 4200 44 1 600

LS EA LS EA LF EA LF LF EA EA LF LF EA EA LF EA LS SY

$117,000 $40,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40 $3,000 $50 $35 $3,500 $2,500 $100 $60 $2,500 $20,000 $5 $5,000 $15,000 $80

$117,000 $40,000 $35,000 $180,000 $150,000 $15,000 $292,500 $55,125 $14,000 $5,000 $202,500 $33,900 $12,500 $20,000 $21,000 $220,000 $15,000 $48,000

1 42 234

LS AC EA

$32,000 $5,000 $250

$32,000 $210,000 $58,500 $526,978 $579,675

$6,376,428

Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

PHASE 2 Item / Recommendation Quantity Unit Restroom / Storage / Concessions (25’x50’) x 1 1250 SF Shelter - Lacrosse Field 20’x28’ (with equipment storage) 1 EA Lacrosse and football goals and player benches 1 LS Outdoor tennis courts, color coated, 10ft perimeter fence 6 EA Tennis court lighting 6 EA Trees, shrubs, perennials, and seeding 1 LS Irrigation 2 EA E&SC / stormwater management / OH / 10% contingency Add 10% for design, permitting and approvals

Unit Cost Total Item Cost $100 $125,000 $60,000 $60,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $360,000 $15,000 $90,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40,000 $70,000 $77,000

$847,000

TOTAL FOR PHASE 2

Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

PHASE 3 Item / Recommendation Excavation Park road (20’ wide crushed stone surface) Parking (aggregate surface - 60’ wide isles, 20’ wide lanes) Parking (turf stabilized - 60’ wide isles, 20’ wide lanes) Perimeter pathway 8’ wide aggregate trail Interior pathways / walks - 5’ wide aggregate Shelter - West Core Area 68’x40’ Shelter - Playground - 20’x28’ (with equipment storage) Shelter - Baseball Field - 20’x28’ (with equipment storage) High school-sized baseball field with all support structures, including: fencing, stands, scoreboard, dugouts, irrigation, lighting, warning track JV-sized baseball field with all support structures, including: fencing, stands, scoreboard, dugouts, irrigation, lighting, warning track Large baseball field with dugouts, stands, clay infield mix, fencing, shelter Sand volleyball courts Irrigation Electrical distribution - underground electrical Elecrical distribution - transformers Water distribution - water main Water distribution - laterals Sanitary - sewer lines

Quantity 155000 2560 3600 4500 2700 2000 1 1 1

Unit Unit Cost Total Item Cost CY $4 $620,000 SY $25 $64,000 SY $25 $90,000 SY $25 $112,500 SY $20 $54,000 SY $20 $40,000 EA $175,000 $175,000 EA $60,000 $60,000 EA $60,000 $60,000

$232,000

$143,000

$117,000

$234,000

2 4 1250 2 1950 525 675

EA EA LF EA LF LF LF

$25,000 $20,000 $40 $3,000 $50 $35 $100

$50,000 $80,000 $50,000 $6,000 $97,500 $18,375 $67,500

Sanitary - laterals Sanitary - manholes Security lighting along streets and in parking areas Perimeter, light duty fence Seeding Trees E&SC / stormwater management / OH / 10% contingency Add 10% for design, permitting and approvals

185 2 14 3000 19 60

LF EA EA LF AC EA

$60 $2,500 $5,000 $5 $5,000 $250

$11,100 $5,000 $70,000 $15,000 $95,000 $15,000 $246,498 $271,147

$2,982,620

TOTAL FOR PHASE 3

Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan PROPOSED MASTER PLAN - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

PHASE 4 Item / Recommendation Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Item Cost Interior pathways / walks - 5’ wide aggregate 1100 SY $20 $22,000 Fencing around dog park and community garden 2800 LF $50 $140,000 Shelter - Dog Park 20’x28’ (with equipment storage) 1 EA $60,000 $60,000 Shelter - Woodland Grove & Mountain View picnic groves $100,000 $200,000 30’x44’ 2 EA Artificial surface for one rectangular field with fencing and gates 1 LS $600,000 $600,000 Artificial lighting for on diamond-shaped field 1 LS $600,000 $600,000 Lighting for one rectangular field 1 LS $160,000 $160,000 Perimeter, light duty fence 1700 LF $5 $8,500 Composting bins 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Cistern pump for garden irrigation and hose bibs 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Seeding 4 AC $5,000 $20,000 Trees 90 EA $250 $22,500 Shrubs & perennials 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 E&SC / stormwater management / OH / 10% contingency $187,300 Add 10% for design, permitting and approvals $206,030

$2,266,330

TOTAL FOR PHASE 4

Entrance Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Total 90

$419,265 $6,376,428 $847,000 $2,982,620 $2,266,330

$12,891,643

PHASING Ideally, the COG would construct all park improvements in one phase, minimizing construction activities, disruptions, and realizing “economies of scale” construction savings. However, few municipalities or organizations can afford to proceed in this manner and find it more appropriate to phase construction over a period of time. The total cost of the park as currently proposed is $12,810,100. To determine Phasing, we needed to approach a strategy informed by: • • •

the amount the municipalities were willing to fund in the first phase, and subsequent phases; the highest priority facilities construction efficiencies like bulk excavation economies of scale, underground work in preparation for surface improvements and need to complete E&SC and Stormwater management improvements early in the project.

FUNDING COMMITMENT This has been one of the most challenging aspects of the master planning process, getting unanimous agreement of the five municipalities on how much to commit to funding a loan for first phase development of the parks. Although contentious at times, significant agreement was reached on a variety of issues related to funding. The agreement among all five municipalities included: • • • • • • • •

Regional Park development is needed Public funds should be invested in the development of regional parks Full build out with a single borrowing is unaffordable Hess Field should be acquired Oak Hall Master Plan is approved The Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Master Plan is nearing approval A Master Plan for Hess Field was initiated First Phase development should include improvements at all three parks

At the beginning of the discussion on financing and phasing development at the regional parks, there was a wide range of opinions among the municipalities on the level of funding that should take place. They ranged from maintaining the current commitment from the five municipalities of $367,693 per year to financing the entire estimated cost for development of all three parks, a construction cost of $18,730,100. To better understand these options, a spreadsheet was developed assuming four strategies: • Pay for everything and finance development we referred to this as the “Everything – Issue Bonds” scenario • Develop Sports Fields only and defer all other park development, referred to as the “Sports Fields Only – Issue Bonds.” • Develop everything but use only the money currently committed by the municipalities, referred to as “Everything – Pay As You Go” • Develop Sports Fields Only and use the money currently committed by the five municipalities, referred to as “Sports Fields Only – Pay As You Go.” Under the Issuing Bonds strategies, the following were suggested as possible increases in annual payments to cover the financing costs (assume interest rate of 4.25%, inflation rate of 3% and bond terms of 20 years).

Municipality

Current Annual Commitment

State College College Township Ferguson Township Patton Township Harris Township Annual total

$97,007 $75,292 $93,224 $72,341 $29,829 $367,693

Everything Annual Commitment Increase (years 3-20) $224,475 $174,226 $215,721 $167,398 $69,025 $850,845

Sports Fields Only Annual Commitment Increase (years 3-20) $145,097 $112,617 $139,438 $108,203 $44,616 $549,971

Under the Pad As You Go scenarios, we estimated how long it would take to complete the master plan for Whitehall Road, relying on the current allocation of funds each year from the municipalities and using the same inflation rate. Everything – 88 years to complete Sports Fields Only – 50 years to complete The purpose of this analysis was not to suggest a winning strategy but to begin a dialogue as to what is acceptable in terms of financial commitment to this project by each of the five municipalities. It became clear that some financing would be required to develop the parks in a reasonable time line. Concurrently with this analysis, we interviewed Jerry Andree, Cranberry Township (Butler) Manager regarding their new park facility. They had just developed a sports complex through a combination of fund raising and borrowing. The following chart describes their financing cash flow for the park.

Graham Park Financing Mashuda Corp. (In-kind services) Dick’s Sporting Goods Athletic Associations Township Bond Grants from DCNR Total

$1 Million $1 Million $1.25 Million $10 Million $0.75 Million $14 Million

Through the spring of 2010, each municipality identified their comfort level with borrowing based on all of the other municipal needs and revenues they face. This increased funding for parks may result in increased taxes. These were not easy decisions. How much to finance the first phase of development was the focus of many discussions once the total cost of all three parks was estimated. Everyone wanted development to occur in all three parks and to focus on getting as many fields developed as possible. The barrier was an agreement among the municipalities on how much to finance. To better understand how funding impacted development, the cost estimate was reconfigured, to show how much development could occur based on various funding scenarios suggested by several municipalities. We started in February looking at a development plan for the three parks based on an $8,100,000 Capital Improvements program for all three parks. We were then asked to look at the impact of development of fields and trails with a total budget for all three parks of $5,500,000 and $10,100,000. This strategy assigned the following amounts to each park:

Oak Hall Hess Field Whitehall Road

$ 2,437,659 $ 500,000 $ 2,563,341 $ 5,500,000

$ 2,437,659 $ 500,000 $ 7,162,341 $10,100,000

The numbers did not tie specifically to facility development. So another analysis was developed that tied directly to which facilities would be constructed under several strategies. For this analysis, we looked at a $12,000,000 construction budget for all three parks (a $10,000,000 loan) and a $9,000,000 construction budget (a loan of $7,000,000). The following matrix identifies which facilities included in the master plan for Whitehall Road, would be developed under each funding scenario. Facility

Earthwork/ESC/Storm Interior Park Road Parking Sewage/Electric/Water Temp. Entrance Road Diamond Shaped Fields Trail from Musser Gap Perimeter Trail Large Picnic Shelter Small Picnic Shelter Group Picnic Shelter Dog Park Community Garden Playground Maintenance Building Outdoor Tennis Courts Restroom/Concessions Baseball Upgrades Basketball/V-ball Courts Artificial Surface/Lighting Other Items Not Included

Original Plan

$12,000,000 development based on $10,000,000 loan (1) (1) (1) (1)

$9,000,000 development based on $7,000,000 loan (1) (1) (1) (1)

(2)

(3)

(3) (3) (3) (3)

(3) (3)

(3)

(1) Within the 75-acre parcel (2) Surface facilities for 1 field (3) 50% of facilities proposed

What evolved towards the end of the planning process was: • • •

College, Ferguson and Harris Townships supporting a $10,000,000 loan Patton Township will support a borrowing that requires payments of 1.5 of their current contributions. State College Borough supports more than a $7,100,000 loan if municipal contributions can increase over time

The COG prepared a funding analysis for both $7,100,000 and $7,500,000 borrowing options and the impacts on the annual contribution of each municipality. The following chart illustrates those various cash flow options, adding length of loan as a second variable.

Municipality: Borough of State College College Township Patton Township Harris Township Ferguson Township

Municipality: Borough of State College College Township Patton Township

Current Funding Level $97,007.00 $75,292.00 $72,341.00 $29,829.00 $93,224.00

% of Total 26.38% 20.48% 19.67% 8.11% 25.35%

$367,693.00

100.00%

1.5 times Current Level $145,510.50 $112,938.00 $108,511.50 $44,743.50 $139,836.00

2011 COG Formula $475,000.00 23.37% $111,007.50 18.11% $86,008.25 21.08% $100,130.00

Harris Township Ferguson Township

$516,295.00 $545,383.00 $449,717.00 $475,053.00 $120,658.14 $127,456.01 $105,098.86 $111,019.89 $93,485.54 $98,752.50 $81,430.26 $86,017.85 $108,834.99 $114,966.74 $94,800.34 $100,141.17

9.40% 28.05%

$44,635.75 $133,223.25

$48,516.24 $51,249.64 $42,259.91 $44,640.73 $144,805.26 $152,963.57 $126,132.13 $133,238.11

100.00%

$475,004.75

$516,300.16 $545,388.45 $449,721.50 $475,057.75

Borrowing Scenario Borrowing 7.1 million @ 4% for 20 years Borrowing 7.5 million @ 4% for 20 years Borrowing 7.1 million @ 4% for 25 years Borrowing 7.5 million @ 4% for 25 years

Annual Amount $516,295.24 $545,383.30 $449,716.99 $475,053.16

PRIORITY FACILITIES The first phase of development needed to address the well documented shortage of sports fields. So funds were allocated for safety upgrades at Hess Field, the development of all three softball fields at Oak Hall and as many sports fields that could be built with the remaining funds at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. In addition, staff and several municipalities suggested several additional stipulations. They included: • • •

Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands having flush toilet restrooms available in the first phase The perimeter trails be developed at both Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands Phase One for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands should include the proposed maintenance facility

CONSTRUCTION EFFICIENCIES 1. Grading – although there are ways of attempting to balance the excavation in terms of cut and fill in smaller areas, the grading of the entire park area has significant advantages. This results in the most efficient cut/fill balance. Economies of scale are realized with the larger bulk excavation projects which lowers the cost of park development.

2. Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Stormwater Management – like grading, one can phase these measures. However, we are relying on stormwater detention along the lower sides of the park, areas that might not be in the first phase of development, requiring staged stormwater management that can become costly. 3. Underground utilities – there is nothing more frustrating than completing the construction of a new facility, only to have it torn up as you install underground utilities for a subsequent phase. We would suggest installing a gravity sewer line from the Restroom in the East Core Area to the location of the proposed Sewage Lift station, even if port-a-johns are used in the short term. Then, when the restrooms are built, there will not be any disruption to roads, parking or other facilities. At the COG Forum on June 28, a phasing strategy was presented. It included: •

Oak Hall development costing about $3,200,000 and included: All grading, erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management measures for the entire park Entrance improvements and 2/3 of parking lot construction Three softball fields Restrooms with flush toilets Perimeter trail

•

Whitehall Road Regional Parklands development costing about $6,100,000 and included: All grading, erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management measures for the 75 acre parcel All parking and interior park roads Temporary entrance road Restrooms with flush toilets Perimeter and interior trails 7 rectangular fields and one practice field 1 diamond shaped field Underground utilities or sleeves for future utilities Regional playground Basketball and volleyball courts Shelters

•

Without a master plan for Hess Field, it is difficult to determine what should be developed first and a magnitude of development. We have allocated $300,000 as a placeholder for safety repairs until more information is developed later in 2010.

The rest of Whitehall Road Regional Parklands would be developed in three additional phases. Given the significant development of Phase One and the lack of clarity as to when the additional 25 acres will be acquired, we proposed a second phase that completes the two remaining rectangular fields, develops six outdoor tennis courts, plants trees and adds more shelters not built in Phase One. The Third Phase would include all of the development in the 25-acre parcel, pending acquisition. A Fourth Phase would complete the large reservation picnic areas, community gardens and dog park on the eastern end of the park and other improvements to the park that were not included in earlier phases.

- All grading, E&SC, stormwater for the 75 acres - Parking and interior park roads - Temporary entrance road (excl. intersection/PennDot improvements) - Flush toilets in restrooms, concessions and storage - Perimeter and interior trails - Rectangular fields F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M - Diamond shaped field C - On-site utilities (excluding lift station) - Maintenance Facility - Regional Playground - Basketball courts - Shelters in support of east core area

1 Phase 1

7/13/10

Phasing Plan Final Master Plan

Battaglia Jones Landscape Architects

- Football and lacross fields N and O - Outdoor tennis courts - Shelters in support of fields - Trees - Fencing

2 Phase 2

Whitehall Road Regional Park Master Plan

96 1

- All grading, E&SC, stormwater for the 25 acres - Parking and interior roads - Perimeter and interior trails - Diamond-shaped fields A, B, D, and E - Lighting for field D - Shelters in support of west core area and fields - Trees - Fencing

3 Phase 3

- Shelters and facilities for picnic groves, dog park and community gardens - Interior trails - Trees - Artificial surfaces on fields M, F, and B - Lighting for fields M and F

4 Phase 4

MANAGEMENT, OPERATION, RISK MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT The success of all of the Regional Parklands is dependent on the Centre Region Parks and Recreation’s (CRPR) ability to successfully manage, operate, and maintain the park. The details of the Management Plan includes an Administrative Plan, Program Plan, Risk Management Plan, and Maintenance Plan are described in the previously completed Oak Hall Road Master Plan. The same systems apply to this master plan as well. Much of this type of management plan already exists within the Centre Region Parks and Recreation. Some adaptations or additions may be required to meet the specific needs of this new park.

MAINTENANCE CRPR has an established maintenance staff consisting of a parks supervisor, assistant supervisor, six caretakers, and fourteen seasonal staff that will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the regional parks in addition to all the existing community parks. The staff is experienced and adept at the maintenance of park lands and the types of facilities that are to be located in this park. Planning for maintenance and operations is an important consideration in the development of new park facilities. Consideration must be given to on-going staffing and maintenance costs, as well as major equipment needs. Additionally, development of a Park Maintenance Plan is the first step in risk management. A Park Maintenance Plan should establish standards of care that will keep recreation facilities functional and safe, reduce liability risks, and plan for prevention of accidents. A sample maintenance plan can be found in the appendix of this report. Routine equipment maintenance and servicing must be scheduled and performed on a regular basis. With proper care, replacement of maintenance equipment can be kept to a minimum. An equipment and tool inventory should be kept accurate and up-to-date to assure the availability of proper tools when they are needed. A fund should be established to provide for new maintenance equipment and a regular replacement program. Regular review of legal requirements and inspections for conformance to sanitary regulations, criteria for licensing, fire laws, building codes, pesticide applications, and safety procedures should be a priority for the maintenance staff. The CRPR should keep up-to-date with safety standards such as those published by the American Society for Testing Materials and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The maintenance plan will set standards of care for all facilities. This allows for a measure of productivity in park and facility maintenance. Park maintenance should be monitored and compared to the standards established in the Park’s Maintenance Plan. The National Recreation and Parks Association’s publication Operational Guidelines for Grounds Maintenance, describes various levels of care for park facilities. The publication assists in determining the appropriate level of maintenance of park facilities based on size and usage and provides productivity standards, which are useful in determining the efficiency and effectiveness of park maintenance staff. This publication is also a valuable tool for projecting maintenance requirements of proposed projects and, with current cost estimating guides, can assist in establishing park maintenance budgets.

The NRPA classification system identifies five levels of care that a park facility may receive. These are as follows:1

MODE I State of the art maintenance applied to a high quality, diverse landscape. Mode I care is usually associated with high traffic urban areas, such as public squares, malls, governmental grounds or high visitation areas.

MODE II High level maintenance associated with well developed park areas with reasonably high visitation.

MODE III Moderate level of visitation, locations with moderate to low levels of visitation, or with agencies that because of budget restrictions can’t afford a higher intensity of maintenance.

MODE IV Moderately low levels of maintenance usually associated with low levels of development, low visitation, underdeveloped areas, or remote parks.

MODE V High visitation natural areas usually associated with large urban or regional parks. Size and user frequency may dictate resident maintenance staff. Road, pathway, or trail systems relatively well developed. Other facilities at strategic locations such as entries, trailheads, building complexes, etc. For Whitehall Road Regional Parklands, Mode II identifies the appropriate description of care for its facilities. The sample maintenance standards provided in the appendix, and the operating and maintenance cost estimates included in this section are based on this level of care. Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is a highly developed park with many facilities for both active and passive recreation. The entire 100 acres of the park is planned to be developed with recreation facilities. A great deal of non-recreational amenities is included to support visitors in their use of the park. The park will have very high visitation levels, often with hundreds of users in the park for regular activities. Because of the multitude of recreation facilities and the high user loads, the park will require a great deal of maintenance. Maintenance needs will be as varied as the number and types of facilities found within the park. A sophisticated maintenance system will be needed to ensure the park is functional, safe, and attractive. The following general list of facilities in the park that will require various types of maintenance.

FACILITY TYPES FOR MAINTENANCE • • • • • • • • • • • •

Grass fields – baseball/softball, soccer, lacrosse, field hockey etc. Artificial turf fields – rectangular only Buildings – restrooms, concession stands, picnic shelters, stage, maintenance facility Roads, parking lots, and bridges Tennis courts Maintenance facility Dog park Tree nursery Seasonal ice rink Ornamental trees, shrubs, grasses, flowers Trails – interior (2.8 miles at 5’ wide), perimeter (1.7 miles at 8’ wide) Playgrounds

1 Operational Guidelines for Grounds Maintenance, Published by Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, National Recreation and Park Association, and Professional Grounds Management Society, 2001

• • • • • •

Sport courts – multiple Field and court lighting Community gardens Irrigation system Water and sanitation systems Stormwater management areas - rain gardens, storm water infiltration trenches, grass swales, stormwater basin, rainwater cistern

MAINTENANCE STAFFING, SUPPLIES,

AND

EQUIPMENT

In order to plan for the operation and maintenance of Whitehall Road Regional Parklands, CRPR needs to understand the estimated costs and activities involved. The following assumptions were made to project operation and maintenance costs for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands: • CRPR will be responsible for total operation of the Park. • All maintenance will be conducted to meet high level maintenance standards of safety and quality. • One full-time maintenance person will be used to maintain the Park. He or she will be assisted by three seasonal staff persons. • Staff, equipment, and supplies will be shared with the operation and maintenance of the other parks under the jurisdiction of CRPR.

STAFFING Based on an interview with the CRPR Parks Supervisor the following staffing is projected. For Phase I Development

Maintenance Staffing for Phase One Development Position Park Caretaker 8-month Full-time laborers Summer help Turf specialist - 25 hours annually Total Staff Costs

Number 1 3 4

Annual Rate $38,000 $16,000 $3,500

Total $38,000 $48,000 $14,000 $4,000 $104,000

A full-time Park Caretaker will be needed to oversee and maintain the park. Based on 2010 salaries for similar positions within the CRPR, this position cost approximately $38,000 per year (including typical benefits). Three seasonal Park Maintenance Workers will also be needed for a forty hour week for eight months with a staggered weekend schedules to cover the park seven days per week. The cost for these positions is about $11.25 per hour. Total anticipated cost for the positions would be about $48,000 annually. Specialty turf work including aeration, topdressing, infield grading, fertilization, overseeding, etc. would require about 20 days with a skilled operator from within the existing CRPR staff. The cost for this will be about $25/hr for a total annual expense of about $4,000. Additional temporary staff (probably 3 to 4 people) will be needed to support seasonal maintenance, programming, and facilities needs during the peak use season. These staff will cost about $10 per hour. The anticipated cost for 10 weeks of temporary staff approximately 35 hours per week will be between $10,000 and $15,000 annually. At Full Build Out Maintenance demands will be much greater when the park is completely built. This will result in the need for additional staffing to maintain the park. Anticipated staff will include the Full-time park caretaker as

recommended for Phase I development. Additionally, we anticipate the need for two full-time, year-round park laborers. The increase in full time staff will decrease the need for the 8-month laborers to two instead of three. The number of summer helpers will likely remain at four. The number of hours needed for the Turf Specialist will increase to at least 50 per year. Because this park is rather turf intensive, there may be value in training one of the full-time staff as a turf specialist. We have also recommended the use of an arborist to maintain the trees in the park. While this is listed as a staff person, it may be more cost effective to contract for the arborists services rather than hire one on staff. Maintenance Staffing at Full Build-out Position Park Caretaker Full-time laborer 8-month Full-time laborers Summer help Turf specialist - 50 hours annually Arborist - 50 hours annually

Number 1 2 2 4 0.2 0.2

Total Staff Costs

Annual Rate $45,000 $35,000 $28,000 $4,000 $40,000 $40,000

Total $45,000 $70,000 $56,000 $16,000 $8,000 $8,000 $203,000

Maintenance Equipment The CRPR park maintenance department is already outfitted with a series of excellent maintenance equipment. Much of that equipment, including the aerator, slit seeder, fertilizer spreader, top dressing machine, core aerator, and sod cutter is shared among all of the agencies parks and also can be used at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. In addition to these, the following pieces of equipment will be needed as well. Equipment Utility truck â&#x20AC;&#x201C; light duty (Gator, Cushman, Mule or similar) Utility truck â&#x20AC;&#x201C; heavy duty Toro Groundsmaster 4500D (large area mowing)* Toro Groundsmaster 328D (smaller area mowing)* Debris blower for Toro 328D* Toro Infield Pro with front blade and drag mats* Small power and hand tools Total

Estimated Cost $10,000 $20,000 $40,000 $20,000 $4,000 $25,000 $40,000 $150,000

*CRPR currently uses Toro cutting and field maintenance equipment so that brand is specified in this list.

All of this equipment will not need to be purchased at one time. Equipment that is already owned by CRPR may be able to be shared with Whitehall Road Regional Parklands as operations begin. New equipment can be purchased as the demand dictates over the first several years of operation. In addition to the above listed large equipment, additional smaller equipment will be needed to supplement the departments existing inventory. This could include push mowers, string trimmers, blowers, chain saw, air compressor, air tools, mechanics tools, carpenters tools, lawn and landscape tools, power tools, and hand tools. A full complement of these tools will initially cost about $40,000. This cost may be reduced if some of the equipment is already available within the parks system. As the CRPR continues to expand its major equipment inventory, it is recommended that they evaluate the option of renting some of the major pieces of equipment rather than to purchase them. When comparing purchase prices, maintenance, equipment replacements, insurance, and other costs, renting may be more cost effective than purchase.

100

Supplies and Materials In addition to manpower and equipment costs there will also be associated consumable supplies and materials expense for park maintenance. Consumable supplies are a bit more difficult to predict as they are affected by a multitude of variables. The chart below estimates these consumable expenses. One column shows anticipated costs for the first phase of development and a second column shows the costs at full build-out. Maintenance Materials, Supplies, and Services

Phase One

Full Build Out

Utilities

$16,000

$30,000

Water and Sanitary System

$12,000

$25,000

$20,000

$60,000

$12,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000

$20,000 $15,000 $20,000 $40,000 $16,000 $20,000 $20,000

$20,000

$35,000

$130,000

$301,000

General Repairs and Maintenance Trail Maintenance Supplies Road, Parking, and Sidewalk Building Materials and Supplies Contracted Repairs Small Tools / Minor Equipment Equipment Repairs / Supplies Turf Maintenance Supplies General Expenses - insurance, staff training, transportation, office administration, and other expenses Total Maintenance and Operations Supply Costs

Summary of Anticipated Operations and Maintenance Expenses Materials supplies, and services

$130,000

$301,000

Staffing

$104,000

$203,000

Total Expenses

$234,000

$504,000

$4,680

$5,040

Cost per Acre for O&M

Cost per Acre for Operations and Maintenance One way to compare operations and maintenance costs to other parks of similar size and features is by considering the cost per acre per year to maintain the park. While there are not good benchmarks to available in the industry, research conducted by Pashek Associates shows that typical annual operation and maintenance costs per acre for parks similar to Whitehall Road Park range from about $4,000 per acre to $8,000 per acre. Cost projections for Whitehall Road Park identify the operations and maintenance cost per acre at $4,680 for the first phase of development and $5,040 once the park is fully developed. Both of these estimates are in the lower end of the range yet seem reasonable for the Centre Region.

101

POTENTIAL REVENUE PRODUCTION ESTIMATED PHASE I REVENUE PRODUCTION The primary sources of revenue production for Whitehall Road Regional Park will come from sportfield use and pavilion rentals. In 2008 CRPR initiated their Sportfield Reservation Process to “Effectively manage the high demand for public sportfield uses and to recover some of the costs associated with sportfield maintenance.” This policy was based upon their pavilion reservation system, in place for over 20 years.

SPORT FIELD USE Seven soccer fields, a baseball/softball field, and a rectangular practice field area are planned for the first phase of development in Whitehall Road Regional Park. CRPR charges a reservation fee for various levels of field use. Based on the Fee Schedule (shown to the right), the following revenue can be expected from sportfield use.

CRPR F E E S C H E D U L E SPORT FIELD FEES Reservation Fee - $15 – charged for all reservations of one or more fields for more than a single 4-hour block of time Sport Season Reservation Fee - $140 per field per sport season for resident groups; $210 for non-resident groups Tournament Fee - $110 per field per day (additional fees may be charged according to CRPR’s Large Group Event Policy)

PAVILION RATES Reservation Fee - $40-$45 depending on the pavilion Additional Fee for Electric - $5

LARGE GROUP EVENT Standard Fee - $45 per day Electric Fee - $5 per day Reimbursements for event-related costs incurred by CRPR

ANTICIPATED USE OF FIELDS Soccer Fields Seven fields reserved four days per week for both the summer and fall seasons at $140 each. Total revenue $7840/yr. Twelve tournaments with four fields reserved for three days each. Total revenue $5280/yr. Large Event Fee for tournaments - $1620/yr. Additional electric fees charged at negotiated rates of $75 per day - $2700/yr. Baseball/Softball Field One field reserved five days per week for both the summer and fall seasons. Total revenue $1400/yr. Estimated Annual Sport Field Revenue - $17,440

102

ANTICIPATED USE OF PICNIC PAVILIONS There are two picnic shelters planned for the first phase of Whitehall Road Regional Park. Shelters can be rented for the day or portion of a day for picnic-type group activities and family events. Reservations must be made through CRPR. Shelters rent for $40 to $45 per use with an additional $5 for the use of electricity. In 2008, CRPR pavilions were rented an average of 38 times each. Based on this average Whitehall Road Pavilions would be rented a total of 72 times at $45 each. Estimated Annual Pavilion Revenue - $3240

RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMING CRPR currently offers a wide variety of recreational programs to area residents. Whitehall Road Regional Parkland would be suitable as a location for many kinds of outdoor recreation programs. CRPR should analyze the program needs of the community in comparison to the facilities available in this Park to make a decision as to which, if any, programs would be held here. It is not likely that typical recreation programming held at the park would produce any amount of revenue in excess of the expense of operating the programs.

CONCESSION STAND SALES At this point it is unclear who will operate the concession stand in the park. If it is operated by sports organizations, any revenue produced would likely go directly to that organization. If it is to be operated by CRPR, it would be best to contract out its operations to a private vendor. This removes the CRPR from the burden of operating the facility on and ongoing basis. A local vendor would pay CRPR an agreed upon fee or portion of the profits to operate the stand. If the park becomes as active as anticipated, it would produce tens of thousands of dollars in gross income annually. Estimated Annual Concession Revenue - $12,000

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Revenues produced through park activity will not offset the cost of operating the park. Additional funds will need to be provided. Other funding sources could include sales of advertising signs for on ballfield fences; selling of naming rights to individual fields; or securing seasonal sponsors for programs or facilities. These types of activities have produced tens of thousands of dollars for other communities. If CRPR chooses to pursue any of these, it would be wise to consult other communities who have been successful with these types of financial programs before.

REVENUE POTENTIAL SUMMARY PHASE I SPORTFIELD USE FEES - $17,440 PAVILION RESERVATION FEES - $3,240 CONCESSION STAND REVENUE - $12,000 TOTAL REVENUES - $32,680

FUTURE REVENUE Revenues will increase proportionally as the facility is further developed and used. At full capacity, revenues should approach $100,000 annually.

FUNDING SOURCES Many agencies provide grants to assist in providing financial resources to implement design and construction of facilities similar to those proposed for the Regional Parklands. Some offer grants to implement educational programs in concert with these facilities. Still others support the planning and implementation of projects with preserve habitat. Assistance can also take the form of technical help, information exchange, and training.

103

Submission of a thorough application may result in award of monies, given the competition for grant funding. Strategies for improving the chances of receiving a grant include: •

Being well-prepared by knowing the funding agency (contact persons, addresses, phone numbers); ensuring your agency or municipality (if submitting on your behalf) and the project are eligible; and submitting a complete and accurate application ahead of the deadline.

•

Clearly indicate the funding agency’s vision and plans in the application, to portray where your project fits their goals. Describe how matching funds such as private contributions, and other grants will leverage the funding. Describe how maintenance of the site will be accomplished, to help justify the request for the grant. Show past successes such as how past recreation projects were funded and built and how this project impacts those successes.

•

Contacting the funding agencies by personally meeting with them to show your commitment to the project.

Based on the potential funding sources for the project, we recommend pursuing the following grant opportunities: •

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Community Grants (for local recreation, park, and conservation projects (part of the Growing Greener Program): construction of recreation and park improvements, trails, roads, etc. Grants require a 50% match. Address: Northcentral Region (4) Wes Fahringer 300 Pine Street Suite 400 Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: (570) 326-3521 Email: mfahringer@state.pa.us Website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us

•

Environmental Education Grants Program, through the PA Department of Environmental Protection. Includes grants for Public and Private Schools (K-12) (teachers and/or students); Conservation and Education Organizations (teachers) including colleges, universities, intermediate units, government agencies, and non-profit conservation/education organizations; and Conservation Districts. Website: www.pde.state.pa.us.

•

104

Community Conservation Partnerships Programs Agency: Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Program Goals: To develop and sustain partnerships with communities, non-profits and other organizations for recreation and conservation projects and purposes. The Bureau of Recreation and Conservation is responsible for fostering, facilitating and nurturing the great majority of these partnerships through technical assistance and grant funding from the Community Conservation Partnerships Programs. Program Restrictions: See DCNR grant application manual for the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, as program restrictions vary by type. Use of Funds: Planning and Technical Assistance; Comprehensive Recreation, Park and Open Space Plans; Conservation Plans; County Natural Area Inventories; Feasibility Studies; Greenways and Trails Plans; Rails-to-Trails Plans; Master Site Plans; River Conservation Plans; Education and Training; Peer-to-Peer; Circuit Rider; Acquisition Projects; Park and Recreation Areas; Greenways,

Trails and Rivers Conservation; Rails-to-Trails; Natural and Critical Habitat Areas; Development Projects; Park and Recreation Areas; Park Rehabilitation and Development; Small Community Development; Greenways and Trails; Rails-to-Trails; Rivers Conservation; Federally Funded Projects; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Projects; Pennsylvania Recreational Trails Address: Northcentral Region (4) Wes Fahringer 300 Pine Street Suite 400 Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: (570) 326-3521 Email: wfahringer@state.pa.us Website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us

•

U.S. Soccer Foundation Agency: The United States Soccer Federation Foundation, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation qualified under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Program Goals: The Foundation’s Grants Program is open to anyone with a soccer specific program or project that benefits a non-for-profit purpose. A complete list of guidelines for the Foundation’s Grants Program can be obtained by reviewing the Instructions section of the grant application. Earnings from the permanent endowment fund of the Foundation are the source for grants made by the Foundation for worthy soccer projects. The Foundation is now in its ninth year of awarding grants for soccer projects to worthy soccer organizations, civic groups, municipalities and governing bodies, having awarded approximately $17,000,000 in grants during its first nine years of operation. The Foundation commences its grant process in the fall and announces the recipients each spring. The following, listed in priority order, have been established to fund innovative and creative programs. · · · ·

Ethnic, minority, and economically disadvantaged players Player and coaching development Referee development Field development

Address: US Soccer Foundation 1050 17th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Attn: Grants Department Website: Grant Applications may be filed electronically ONLY at the Foundation’s website ussoccerfoundation.org

•

Baseball Tomorrow Fund Agency: Baseball Tomorrow Fund Program Goals: The Baseball Tomorrow Fund missions is to promote and enhance the growth of youth participation in baseball and softball throughout the world by funding programs, fields, coaches’ training, and the purchase of uniforms and equipment to encourage and maintain youth participation in the game. Grants are designed to be sufficiently flexible to enable applicants to address needs unique to their communities. The funds are intended to finance a new program, expand or improve an existing program, undertake a new collaborative effort, or obtain facilities or equipment. The Baseball Tomorrow Fund provides grants to non-profit and tax-exempt organizations in both rural and urban communities. The Baseball Tomorrow Fund awards an average of thirty grants per year totaling more

105

than $1.5 million. The average grant amount is $51,000. The Baseball Tomorrow Fund is funded annually by Major League Baseball and the Players Association. Address: 245 Park Avenue New York, NY 10167 Phone: (212) 931-7878 Website: www.baseballtomorrowfund.com

•

Community Improvement Grants Agency: Pennsylvania Urban and Community Forestry Department Program Goals: Focus is to support Agreening@ partnerships linking grassroots organizations, local community groups and natural resource experts in support of community resource management and natural resource. Use of Funds or Support: Encourages partnerships with and between diverse organizations and groups. Supports local improvement projects, tree planting projects in parks, greenbelts, schools, and community public spaces. Address: David Jackson Centre County Cooperative Extension Office Willowbank County Office Building 420 Holmes Street Bellefonte, PA 16823-1488 Phone: (814) 355-4897

•

Environmental Education Grants Program Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Program Goals: The Environmental Education Act of 1993 sets aside 5% of the pollution fines and penalties collected each year to stimulate environmental education in Pennsylvania. The goal is to develop new environmental education programs or improve the quality of existing programs. Program Restrictions: This is a reimbursement program. Awards do not exceed $10,000. A 25% match is required of all granted organizations, except for county conservation districts. Use of Funds or Support: Grants may be used to purchase materials, equipment, and other resources. Funding may also provide public and private schools for youth environmental education. Also, to promote conservation and education organizations and institutions for the purpose of providing environmental education training to teachers, county conservation districts and Bureau of State Parks Environmental Education Program to be used for training, in-service workshops, staff salaries, some transportation costs, speakers, substitute costs, and more. Address: Sandra Titel - Environmental Education Grants Program Administrator Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Education Grants P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg PA 17105 Phone: (717) 772-1828 Website: www.dep.state.pa.us

•

106

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service Program Goals: The EQIP, established by the 1996 Farm Bill, is one of the several voluntary conservation programs which are part of the USDA A Conservation Toolbox@ to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices.

Program Restrictions: Through the locally led process, EQIP works primarily in priority areas identified by conservation district-led local work groups involving local community members, state and federal agencies, and others. Use of Funds or Support: EQIP offers financial, educational, and technical help to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices. Address: RR#12 Box 202 C Greensburg, PA 15601-9271 Phone: (724) 834-9063 ext. 3 Website: www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/programshom.htm

â&#x20AC;˘

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants Agency: National Park Service Program Goals: This federal funding source was established in 1965 to provide park and recreation opportunities to residents throughout the United States. Money for the fund comes through the sale or lease of non-renewable resources, primarily federal offshore oil and gas leases and surplus federal land sales. In the past, Congress has also appropriated LWCF monies for state-side projects. These stateside LWCF grants can be used by communities to acquire and build a variety of park and recreation facilities, including trails. This funding source has little or no funding allocated for state-side projects for several years.State-side LWCF funds are annually distributed by the National Park Service through the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Communities must match LWCF grants with 50 percent of the local project costs through in-kind services or cash. All projects funded by the LWCF grants must be exclusively for recreation purposes, into perpetuity.Administered through Community Conservation Partnerships Program. Use of Funds or Support: Plan and invest in existing park system. Address: Northcentral Region (4) Wes Fahringer 300 Pine Street Suite 400 Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: (570) 326-3521 Email: mfahringer@state.pa.us Website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us

â&#x20AC;˘

KaBOOM! Agency: KaBOOM! (National Non-profit) Program Goals: To bring together people, community organizations and businesses to develop safe, healthy and much-needed playgrounds. Program Restrictions: N/A Use of Funds or Support: Leveraged spending power with well-established companies in the play equipment industry. Also, corporate and foundation support that can include volunteers and technical resources. Address: 2213 M Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 659-0215 Website: www.kaboom.org

107

•

Pennsylvania Conservation Corps Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Program Goals: This program provides work experience, job training, and educational opportunities to young adults while accomplishing conservation, recreation, historic preservation, and urban revitalization work on public lands. Program Restrictions: The project sponsors receive the services of a Pennsylvania Conservation Corps crew, fully paid, for one year. Sponsors can also receive up to $20,000 for needed materials and contracted services. Sponsors must provide a 25% cash match on material and contracted services costs. Use of Funds or Support: Funds may be used for materials and contracted services needed to complete approved projects. Address: Lou Scott, Director 1304 Labor and Industry Building 7th and Forster Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 783-6385 Website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us

•

Nike Agency: Nike Program Goals: Get kids more physically active, get kids involved in the teamwork of sport, and have real, measurable, positive impact. Use of Funds or Support: Tax exempt, non profit agencies or a unit of government if the contribution is solely for charitable or public purposes. Corporate giving is focused on communities where Nike has a significant employee or Niketown retail presence. In 2004, Nike donated 37.3 million in cash and products to non-profit partners around the world. The nearest Niketown Factory Store is located at the Grove City Shops, in Mercer County. Address: Global Community Affairs Nike, Inc. P.O. Box 4027 Beaverton, OR 97076 Website: www.nike.com.nikebiz

•

Wal-Mart - Good Works Agency: Wal-Mart Foundation Program Goals: Allows local non-profit organizations to hold fundraisers at their local Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club. Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club can elect to match a portion of the funds collected, up to $1,000. Events held off the premises are eligible for funding when a Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club Associate is actively involved in the event. Additionally, once the Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club has met certain criteria in the Matching Grant Program each year, a second source of funding is awarded to the store / club to use in the community. These funds do not require a fundraiser to be held, instead the funds can be awarded directly to a deserving organization. Program Restrictions: Organizations that may qualify to receive funding through the Matching Grant Program are 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations or organizations that are exempt from needing 501(c) (3) status, such as public schools, faith-based institutions such as churches (must be conducting a project that benefits the community at large), and government agencies. Use of Funds or Support: Community Improvement Projects. Contact: Community Involvement Coordinator at your local Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club store. Website: www.walmartfoundation.org/wmstore/goodworks

108

•

Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation Agency: Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation Program Goals: Education. Community improvement projects such as projects at parks and other public areas, housing for underprivileged and innovative environmental issues. Program Restrictions: Organizations that may qualify to receive funding through the Matching Grant Program are 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. Contact: The Foundation only accepts grant applications submitted via online application. Website: www.easy2.com/cm/lowe/foundation/intro.asp

•

Central Pennsylvania Convention and Visitors Bureau Agency: Central PA Convention and Visitors Bureau Program Goals: Promote the region including: facilitate the development and use of a new tournament quality sports complex assist with promotion of current events to help increase attendance Funding Source: In part, county hotel tax Contact: CPACVB 800 E. Park Avenue State College, PA 16803 814-231-1400 (814-231-8123 fax) Website: www.centralpacvb.org

109

Appendix A: PA His torical and Museum Commission Review

Appendix B: Soil Survey

January 7, 2010 CMT File No. 09468

Pashek Associates c/o Daniel R. Jones, FASLA College of Arts and Architecture The Pennsylvania State University 122 Stuckeman Family Building University Park, PA 16802-1912 Re:

Test Pit Investigation Whitehall Road Park Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Dear Dan: Enclosed please find Test Pit Logs (TP1 through TP13). Our scope of services included observing test pits at the above referenced site. The purpose of the test pit investigation was to provide general depth to bedrock information, and soil information for stormwater/septic disposal purposes. As you are aware, the number of test pits, their locations, termination depths, and the purpose for each test pitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s excavation (i.e., primary focus on depth to bedrock or stormwater/septic disposal), was determined by you. The test pit locations were documented by you during the investigation on your site plan. Based on our discussions of the project goals, it was determined that in the test pits where the primary interest was in depth to bedrock, a general soil profile would suffice. In the test pits where the primary interest was in general stormwater/septic disposal suitability, a more detailed soil profile would be provided. We understand that the purpose of the test pit observations in the stormwater/septic disposal areas is to help determine if further investigation may be warranted.

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: 814-231-8845 Fax: 814-231-8846

Test Pit Investigation Whitehall Road Park Pashek Associates

File No. 09468 January 7, 2010

Soil Mapping The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps indicate that Hagerstown and Opequon-Hagerstown Complex soils exist within the investigated areas. In general, Opequon and Hagerstown soils are similar. Both series consist of residual soils derived from limestone or dolomite bedrock; however, the Opequon soils are shallow (20 inches or less to bedrock), while the Hagerstown soils are deep or very deep (depth to bedrock of 40 inches or more). Typically, areas mapped as Opequon-Hagerstown complex have a depth to bedrock too variable to separate the two series. Primary suitability concerns associated with development of these soils include depth to bedrock and low permeability. Geology According to the NRCS mapping, the rock formation within the investigated area is classified as the Nittany Formation. The dominant rock type is dolomite, which is typically pinnacled and can be difficult to excavate. Sinkhole Potential Although no clear evidence of sinkholes was observed in the test pits, the presence of carbonate bedrock, in itself, renders the site susceptible to sinkhole development during and after construction. In addition, altering a siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grading and drainage characteristics can result in sinkholes developing in areas where test pit data shows little or no potential. Test Pits A total of 13 test pits (TP1 through TP13) were excavated in the presence a CMT soil scientist, with a backhoe provided and operated by others. Please refer to the test pit logs for soil profile information. After our observations were recorded, the test pits were backfilled with excavated materials.

Test Pit Investigation Whitehall Road Park Pashek Associates

File No. 09468 January 7, 2010

Summary The test pit observations confirm the presence of residual soils and carbonate bedrock consistent with the mapping. With the exception of a few suspected limiting soil layers, the majority of the soils at the site appear well-drained and exhibit moderate to good soil structure and macropore (i.e., root channels, earthworm burrows, etc.) frequency. In general, the upper 30 inches of the soil profile appeared more permeable than the deeper soils at the site. We believe that where adequate soil thickness exists, further investigation for stormwater/septic disposal purposes may be warranted. For stormwater disposal purposes, we recommend that an investigation in general accordance with Appendix C of the December 2006 PADEP Stormwater BMP Manual, be conducted. In addition, the design professional may consider reviewing section 7.4 of the BMP Manual prior to the investigation. This section discusses stormwater management in “Karst Areas.” Septic disposal investigations are typically conducted by a licensed Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO). The bedrock observed appeared weathered, fractured and capable of being excavated with heavy equipment to depths several feet deeper than the excavation termination depths. From a permeability perspective, the bedrock at the site did not appear restrictive to water movement compared to the residual soils. Excluding the topsoil, the majority of the subsurface materials at the site may be suitable for use as fill materials. However, some of the excavated pieces of rock were relatively large, and may require sorting and/or crushing prior to use as fill. In addition, some of the clay at the site could be “fat clay,” which may limit its suitability as a fill material for some applications. We recommend that fill materials be evaluated for suitability on a case-by-case basis, depending on their intended use. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, CMT LABORATORIES, INC.

Jeremy D. Tyson, CPSS Soil Scientist/Soil Science Manager

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP1

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Ap - (0 to 11") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (11" to 2.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Medium SAB Structure, Common Macropores, Damp

Bt2 - (2.5' to 4.0') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Medium to Coarse SAB Structure, Few Macropores, Few Manganese Coatings, Damp

C - (4.0' to 4.8') Gray Sandy SILT, Little Gravel; Single-Grain Structure, Damp R - (4.8' to 5.5') Gray DOLOMITE; Hard, Few Fractures, Damp Bottom of Pit - 5.5'

Remarks

4 5 6

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP2

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 11") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp BE - (11" to 1.7') Yellowish Brown Clayey SILT with Sand; Fine SAB Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (1.7' to 3.0') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand & Gravel; Fine to Medium SAB Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt2 - (3.0' to 5.0') Yellowish Red CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Medium to Coarse SAB Structure, Few Macropores, Common Manganese Coatings, Damp CR - (5.0' to 5.8') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE and SILT (Cobbles and Boulders in a Sandy SILT Matrix); Single-Grain Structure, Damp Bottom of Pit - 5.8'

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP3

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 6") TOPSOIL Bt - (6" to 1.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Damp R - (1.5' to 3.0') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE; Platy, Broken, Damp

Bottom of Pit - 3.0'

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2 3

Groundwater Not Encountered

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP4

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 4") TOPSOIL R - (4" to 2.5') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE, Little Clay; Somewhat Platy, Broken, Damp

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2

Bottom of Pit - 2.5'

Groundwater Not Encountered

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP5

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

Ap - (0 to 7") TOPSOIL BE - (7" to 1.5') Yellowish Brown Clayey SILT; Damp Bt1 - (1.5' to 3.0') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand & Gravel; Damp

Bt2 - (3.0' to 5.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand & Gravel; Common Manganese Coatings, Damp

1 2 3 4 5

Bt3 - (5.5' to 7.3') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Damp

6 7

Bottom of Pit - 7.3'

Groundwater Not Encountered

9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP6

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

Ap - (0 to 8") TOPSOIL Bt1- (8" to 3.0') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Damp

1 2

Bt2 - (3.0' to 5.5') Reddish Brown/Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel, Few Dolomite Cobbles & Boulders; Common Manganese Coatings, Damp

3 4 5

R - (5.5' to 6.0') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE (Cobbles & Boulders); Damp Bottom of Pit - 6.0'

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP7

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

Ap - (0 to 7") TOPSOIL BE - (7" to 1.5') Yellowish Brown Clayey SILT, Little Sand; Damp Bt1 - (1.5' to 3.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand, Trace Gravel; Damp

1 2 3

Bt2 - (3.5' to 4.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand; Few Manganese Coatings, Damp C - (4.5' to 5.5') Yellowish Brown SILT with Sand, Little Gravel; Moist Bottom of Pit - 5.5'

4 5 6

5.5' - Encountered Weathered Dolomite Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP8

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

Ap - (0 to 12") TOPSOIL BE - (12" to 2.0') Yellowish Brown Clayey SILT, Little Sand; Damp Bt1 - (2.0' to 3.5') Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand; Damp

1 2 3

Bt2 - (3.5' to 5.0') Reddish Brown/Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Little Sand, Trace Gravel; Few Manganese Coatings, Damp Bt3 - (5.0' to 6.0') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Few Manganese Coatings, Damp Bottom of Pit - 6.0'

4 5 6

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP9

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 10") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (10" to 2.0') Yellowish Brown Silty CLAY, Little Sand; Fine SAB Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt2 - (2.0' to 3.0') Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Medium to Coarse SAB Structure, Common Manganese Coatings, Few Macropores, Damp Bt3 - (3.0' to 5.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand & Gravel; Massive Structure/Structureless, Common Manganese Coatings, Damp

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2 3 4

3.0' - 5.5': Appears restrictive to water due to a lack of favorable soil structure.

5 CR - (5.5' to 6.0') Gray Decomposed/Highly Weathered DOLOMITE (Cobbles and Boulders in a Silt Matrix); Single-Grain Structure, Damp Bottom of Pit - 6.0'

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP10

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Ap - (0 to 10") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (10" to 2.5') Reddish Brown Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Fine to Medium SAB Structure, Common Manganese Coatings, Common Macropores, Damp

Bt2 - (2.5' to 5.5') Brown Silty CLAY with Sand; Massive Structure/ Structureless, Few Manganese Coatings, Few Fine Distinct Redoximorphic Features, Damp

Remarks

2 3 4

3.0' - 5.5': Appears restrictive to water movement due to a lack of favorable soil structure and the presence of redoximorphic features.

5 Bottom of Pit - 5.5'

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP11

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

Ap - (0 to 10") TOPSOIL Bt1 - (10" to 4.5') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Damp

1 2 3 4

Bt2 - (4.5' to 5.5') Yellowish Red/Brown Silty CLAY/Clayey SILT, Little Sand; Damp CR - (5.5' to 6.0') Gray Decomposed/Highly Weathered DOLOMITE (Cobbles and Boulders in a Silt Matrix); Damp Bottom of Pit - 6.0'

5 6

Groundwater Not Encountered

7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP12

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 10") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (10" to 1.8') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Fine to Medium SAB Structure, Common Macropores, Damp Bt2 - (1.8' to 3.2') Yellowish Red/Brown Silty CLAY/Clayey SILT, Trace Sand, Few Small Dolomite Cobbles; Medium SAB Structure, Few Manganese Coatings, Few Macropores, Damp R - (3.2' to 4.5') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE with Silt; Blocky, Broken, Damp Bottom of Pit - 4.5'

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5

Groundwater Not Encountered

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Test Pit Log Project:

Whitehall Road Park

Location:

Ferguson Township, Centre County, PA

Client:

Pashek Associates

Date Performed: 12/16/2009 CMT File Number: 09468

Location: TP13

Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Description

Ap - (0 to 11") TOPSOIL - Dark Brown Clayey SILT with Sand and Organic Matter; Fine SAB to Medium Platy Structure, Many Macropores, Damp Bt1 - (10" to 1.5') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Fine to Medium SAB Structure, Common Macropores, Few Manganese Coatings, Damp Bt2 - (1.5' to 2.8') Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Trace Sand; Medium SAB Structure, Common Manganese Coatings, Common Macropores, Damp BC - (2.8' to 4.5') Mixture of Gray SILT (Decomposed Dolomite) and Yellowish Red Silty CLAY, Some Dolomite Gravel & Small Cobbles; Single-Grain/Medium SAB Structure, Damp R - (4.5' to 5.0') Gray Weathered DOLOMITE; Platy, Broken, Damp Bottom of Pit - 5.0'

Depth (Feet)

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5

Groundwater Not Encountered

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845 Fax: (814) 231-8846 www.cmtlabsinc.com

Appendix C: PNDI

PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt

Project Search ID: 20090902208489

1. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Whitehall Road Park Date of review: 9/2/2009 10:39:09 AM Project Category: Recreation,Other Project Area: 166.1 acres County: Centre Township/Municipality: State College,Ferguson Quadrangle Name: STATE COLLEGE ZIP Code: 16801 Decimal Degrees: 40.76411 N, --77.86978 W Degrees Minutes Seconds: 40째 45' 50.8" N, -77째 52' 11.3" W

2. SEARCH RESULTS Agency

Results

Response

PA Game Commission

No Known Impact

No Further Review Required

PA Department of Conservation No Known Impact and Natural Resources PA Fish and Boat Commission No Known Impact

No Further Review Required

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

No Further Review Required

No Known Impact

No Further Review Required

As summarized above, Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) records indicate no known impacts to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources within the project area. Therefore, based on the information you provided, no further coordination is required with the jurisdictional agencies. This response does not reflect potential agency concerns regarding impacts to other ecological resources, such as wetlands.

Page 1 of 3

PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt

Project Search ID: 20090902208489

3. AGENCY COMMENTS Regardless of whether a DEP permit is necessary for this proposed project, any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources must be resolved with the appropriate jurisdictional agency. In some cases, a permit or authorization from the jurisdictional agency may be needed if adverse impacts to these species and habitats cannot be avoided. These agency determinations and responses are valid for one year (from the date of the review), and are based on the project information that was provided, including the exact project location; the project type, description, and features; and any responses to questions that were generated during this search. If any of the following change: 1) project location, 2) project size or configuration, 3) project type, or 4) responses to the questions that were asked during the online review, the results of this review are not valid, and the review must be searched again via the PNDI Environmental Review Tool and resubmitted to the jurisdictional agencies. The PNDI tool is a primary screening tool, and a desktop review may reveal more or fewer impacts than what is listed on this PNDI receipt.

PA Game Commission RESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources RESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

PA Fish and Boat Commission RESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RESPONSE: No impacts to federally listed or proposed species are anticipated. Therefore, no further consultation/coordination under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. is required. Because no take of federally listed species is anticipated, none is authorized. This response does not reflect potential Fish and Wildlife Service concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other authorities.

4. DEP INFORMATION The Pa Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requires that a signed copy of this receipt, along with any required documentation from jurisdictional agencies concerning resolution of potential impacts, be submitted with applications for permits requiring PNDI review. For cases where a "Potential Impact" to threatened and endangered species has been identified before the application has been submitted to DEP, the application should not be submitted until the impact has been resolved. For cases where "Potential Impact" to special concern species and resources has been identified before the application has been submitted, the application should be submitted to DEP along with the PNDI receipt, a completed PNDI form and a USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map with the project boundaries delineated on the map. The PNDI Receipt should also be submitted to the appropriate agency according to directions on the PNDI Receipt. DEP and the jurisdictional agency will work together to resolve the potential impact(s). See the DEP PNDI policy at http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us.

Page 2 of 3

Appendix D: Meeting Minutes and Materials

Centre Region Council of Governments

REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE 2643 Gateway Drive #1, State College, PA 16801-3885 (814) 231-3071 Fax 814.235.7832

W ebsite: www.crpr.org E-Mail: crpr@crcog.net

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris & Patton

(Draft) Summary Regional Park Planning Committee Meeting Monday, October 12, 2009, 12:15 to 2:00 PM Centre Region COG Building - Forum Room 1.

Mr. Klees called the Regional Park Planning Committee to order with the following 21 individuals present: The COG Parks Capital Committee: (5) Mr. Dan Klees, College Township Mr. Dick Mascolo, Ferguson Township Mr. Jeff Luck, Patton Township Ms. Amy Farkas for Cliff Warner, Harris Township Mr. James Rosenberger, State College Borough The CRPR Board / Authority: (5) Ms. Sue Mascolo, Ferguson Township Mr. Chris Hurley, Patton Township Ms. Kathy Matason, College Township Ms. Donna Conway, State College Borough Mr. Roy Harpster, Harris Township Pashek Associates: (2) Jim Pashek, Dan Jones from Pashek Associates Municipal / Regional Staff: (9, non-voting) Mr. James Steff, COG Executive Dir. Mr. Mark Kunkle, Ferguson Township Mr. Doug Erickson, Patton Township Mr. Adam Brumbaugh, College Township Mr. Thomas Kurtz, State College Borough Mr. Greg Roth, Park Supervisor Mr. Ronald Woodhead, Dir. CRRA/CRPR Ms. Diane Ishler, Office Manager Mr. Jeff Hall, Rec Supervisor - Sports & Fitness He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Pashek.

Hess Softball Field Complex Evaluation Mr. Pashek gave an overview of the process in evaluating the Hess Field Complex. He indicated they interviewed people to discover all the information they could about Hess Field, visited the site to evaluate the structures and land, created a list of the concerns, what needs had to be addressed and prioritized the items. He also talked about management and operations. The Hess Softball Field Complex Evaluation was distributed. It asked and answered four questions: A. Should the municipalities buy the Property? B. Who should buy the property? C. Who should operate and maintain the softball complex? D. If purchased, what kinds of fields should be provided in an â&#x20AC;&#x153;upgraded / updatedâ&#x20AC;? Hess Softball Complex? Mr. Pashek led the group through a discussion of these questions and the answers. A discussion followed. Some of the questions asked were: Was lighting included in the costs listed in #1? Do more youth than adults play at Hess Field? Is this complex in a good location? The costs listed in number one do not include the amenities that go with replacing fields such as parking, restrooms, etc. The question was asked

whether the 25 acres not owned yet at Whitehall Rd Parklands could be used for fields. There was concern about the availability of funds since the two regional parks are currently almost ready for the development stage and the fact that Hess Field was not part of the original charge for regional parks. Acquiring the Hess Field Softball Complex would change the dynamics of the regional parks discussion. Some did not think that it mattered if the fields met the standards of the American Softball Association or PIAA - if teams were willing to come and play on them. Everyone was reminded that although the non-profit sector can operate a park with safety issues, publicly-owned facilities are held to a higher standard. Mr. Klees indicated that a site visit is scheduled on Thursday, October 15, 2009 either at 12:15 PM or 4 PM. It was decided to hold the site visit to Hess Field at 12:15 PM. Mr. Klees indicated that since this may result in a request for acquisition, Harris Township should begin the request with the Executive Committee and then go from there. Mr. Steff reminded everyone that the Articles of Agreement require that any purchase of land must go before the General Forum and be unanimously approved. Mr. Pashek was asked about the price of the property. Ms. Farkas stated that the property was appraised (by the family) at $418,000 but the family was willing to sell it for $200,000 (for land only) plus some additional costs (property transfer costs, legal fees, etc.). Harris Township is to make their presentation to the Executive Committee to start the process. Mr. Kurtz asked if the money to purchase would come from existing resources or new money. Mr. Klees said from existing resources, but that is to be determined. 3.

Whitehall Road Parklands - Master Site Plan A. Mr. Jones distributed a Site Analysis Summary for Whitehall Road Regional Park. He related that it was a limestone valley with a few slopes, a lot of wind, no significant vegetation, very few animals due to the limited habitat, good views, no noise, no history, one access point, the adjacent usage of agriculture and conservation land. There will also be a bike path that travels along the east edge and goes to Musser Gap. Mr. Jones reminded everyone that there are five things that represent their goals for new parks: respect the environment, respond to the community, programming, economics and identity. He related that the Whitehall Rd. Parkland would have an active-recreation / sports emphasis. B. He then presented three concept plans for the Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review. He noted that they all have the same programs, the same response to the environment, the same needs (parking), and all have walking paths. The differences are in how the fields are organized and the roadway placements. C. A discussion followed about whether some amenities should be part of this park. Some stated that if this was an athletic park, then anything planned that was not a field but could be a field should be turned into a field. Mr. Jones explained parking was needed throughout the park due to the park size. He asked if the fields should be grouped or spread out. Ms. Conway said she liked Concept #1; it was nice and simple. Mr. Klees asked for sufficient green space between the fields so people have a place to watch the games. D. Mr. Woodhead related that the three concepts would be presented at the Public Meeting on Oct. 21. It was felt that the three concepts should be presented to the public with questions to answer about the concepts rather than opening it up for random thoughts (for example: What do you think is the best of the different concepts?). A discussion followed about building the fields for tournament use. One of the questions was what economic benefit there would be to the municipalities? It was not thought to build the fields specifically for tournament use, but that the opportunity would be available for local groups to host tournaments. The primary purpose of the fields and parks would be for the residents; it is noted that some residents are on tournament teams. Mr. Roth indicated that some of the current park fields are very close to being closed due to overuse. Ms. Farkas asked if the fields could be converted at a later time if soccer was not popular any more. It was suggested that one way to prevent overuse is to have at least one field with artificial turf. A discussion followed. Each committee member was asked to email Mr. Woodhead regarding what they like best of each of the three plans. He will then forward the comments to Mr. Pashek

The public meeting will be October 21, 2009, 7 PM in the COG Forum Room. In addition, a meeting will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009, 12:15 PM at the Hess Field to review the site in view of the evaluation report. 4.

Recap the Topics for the October General Forum Meeting It was agreed that the Hess Field Evaluation Report, Harris Township Proposal regarding Hess Field, and the Whitehall Road Parkland Master Site Plan process should be presented at the General Forum meeting before the Master Site Plan for the Oak Hall Parklands. Mr. Steff reaffirmed that the desired action for the Oak Hall Parkland Master Site Plan is to have the General Forum approve it. Mr. Klees said he thought at the last meeting that we had sent the responses back to the municipalities. Mr. Woodhead indicated that the General Forum has not seen the responses to the comments. Mr. Luck related that he is still not satisfied with the responses to the Oak Hall Parkland Master Site Plan. Mr. Steff responded that in order for anything to happen at the Oak Hall Parkland the General Forum approval would have to be unanimous. A discussion followed. Mr. Mascolo moved to send the Oak Hall Parkland Master Site Plan as proposed to the General Forum for a vote at the October 26, 2009 meeting. Ms. Farkas (for Mr. Warner) seconded. Motion carried by a 4 - 1 vote. 5.

Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:09 PM. The next CRPR/CRRA meeting will be the special meeting on November 5, 2009 and the regular meeting on November 12, 2009. The next COG Parks Capital meeting will be November 19, 2009. A date has not been set for the next Park Planning Committee meeting.

R:\Home-Office\Regional-Park\Master-Planning\W hitehall_Rd_M SP\Planning_Comm\PlanningComm_Summary12Oct09-Draft.wpd

Centre Region Council of Governments

REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE 2643 Gateway Drive #1, State College, PA 16801-3885 (814) 231-3071 Fax 814.235.7832

W ebsite: www.crpr.org E-Mail: crpr@crcog.net

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris & Patton

(Draft) Summary for the Meeting of the COG Regional Park Planning Committee Monday, December 7, 2009, 12:15 to 2:00 PM Centre Region COG Building, Forum Room 1.

Mr. Klees called the Regional Park Planning Committee to order with the following persons present: - The COG Parks Capital Committee (4) Mr. Dan Klees College Township Mr. Dick Mascolo Ferguson Twp. Mr. Jim Rosenberger S.C. Borough Mr. Cliff Warner Harris Twp. - The CRPR Board / Authority (4) Ms. Sue Mascolo Ferguson Township Mr. Chris Hurley Patton Twp. Ms. Kathy Matason College Township Mr. Roy Harpster Harris Twp. - Jim Pashek & Dan Jones from Pashek Associates - Municipal / Regional Staff (9, non-voting) Mr. James Steff COG Executive Dir. Mr. Mark Kunkle Ferguson Township Mr. Adam Brumbaugh College Township Ms. Farkas Harris Township Mr. Thomas Kurtz State College Borough Mr. Greg Roth Park Supervisor Mr. Ronald Woodhead Director CRRA/CRPR Ms. Diane Ishler Office Manager Mr. Jeff Hall Rec. Supervisor - Sports & Fitness - Guests: 4 visitors from the Centre Region Community Tennis Association.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC - None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the September 14, October 12 and October 19 (Hess Field visit) meetings were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Warner and seconded by Mr. Rosenberger. 4.

OAK HALL REGIONAL PARKLANDS The grant close-out documents for the Oak Hall Regional Parklands Master Site Plan have been prepared for PA DCNR and it is expected that they will be mailed out by December 10, 2009. 5.

HESS SOFTBALL FIELD COMPLEX A. Mr. Woodhead reported that A Request for Quotation for a Real Estate Appraisal and Facilities Valuation of Hess Softball Complex was distributed to five appraisal firms. Two quotes were received so the deadline was then extended by one week until noon today (Dec. 7). As of the meeting three firms had responded. Mr. Woodhead will be meeting with members of the COG Parks Capital Committee to move forward. B. PA DCNR was asked to assist with 50% of the $8,000 cost to have the COGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Facilities Evaluation done for Hess Softball Complex. They declined the request due to the fact that (1) it is not part of the Whitehall Road Parkland site and (2) the evaluation report is already complete. C. The staff is continuing to research the questions about financing and operating the park as raised by

the COG General Forum and the COG Parks Capital Committee. Mr. Steff and Mr. Woodhead met with the COG Solicitor on Friday, December 4, 2009, and have items and additional work to report to the COG Parks Capital Committee meeting on December 17, 2009. 6.

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS - Master Site Plan

A. Mr. Klees referred to the letter received from the Centre Region Community Tennis Association (CRCTA) that was submitted as a follow-up to their comments presented at the October 21, 2009, Community Meeting regarding Whitehall Road Parkland planning. While 4 members of the tennis group were present to answer questions, none were posed. B. Mr. Pashek and Mr. Jones - Draft Master Site Plan Mr. Pashek reviewed the master site process to date, how we got to where we are. He presented a chart on the screen of a Field Development and Supply Analysis with three regional parks (includes Hess Softball Complex), the fields/facilities demand and the recommended number to be developed. (A typo on the chart will be corrected.) A discussion followed as to how demand was determined and how Hess Field fit into the chart. Based on the three Concept Plans provided earlier, Mr. Jones presented Draft Master Site Plan #1 and two artist sketches. He then reviewed the goals that have been established for this project and reviewed the prior concept plans, emphasizing their similarities and differences. He also reviewed what was accepted: basic uses, centralized service zones and a rectangular layout. The biggest change was the location of the road. He then reviewed the new plan that captured the ideas proposed at the community meeting. Some of the questions he proposed were: < Do we want just an area for tennis or do we want to include a building? < Do we want to light any of the fields/tennis courts and if so, how many? < Do we want one or more fields with artificial turf? Mr. Klees asked that we go around the table for any comments. Mr. Mascolo indicated he thought there was too much tennis, and he wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t sure about the artificial surface. Mr. Rosenberger asked why there were two rectangular fields at the end of the site? Mr. Pashek explained the facilities at that end were in the 25 acres not yet purchased. If the 25 acres were never purchased, there would still be baseball and rectangular fields in the Whitehall Road Parkland. Mr. Warner said he was pretty happy with the concept. Mr. Steff asked if it would be a good idea to swap the dog park with the community gardens. He suggested that one of the fields near the park entrance have an artificial surface, however he was concerned with the aesthetics due to the need for protective perimeter fencing near the park entrance. Mr. Pashek said that made sense but they were looking at the fields to the north as part of the stormwater retention, which makes them unsuitable for artificial turf. Mr. Harpster indicated he liked the plan except for the indoor tennis courts. Ms. Mascolo asked about including a tree nursery in the open green space. Mr. Pashek noted that we were planning to include a tree nursery area just south of the maintenance facility; the Parks Supervisor requested a nursery to raise park trees. Ms. Conway liked the plan, but indicated that she thought we should really look at the sport lighting and what we are going to do with tennis. Mr. Pashek asked about access for reservation pavilion areas? Mr. Woodhead indicated that a service drive (with removable bollards for access when needed) would be good. Mr. Hurley indicated a pull-off where people could unload kids and items would be good. Mr. Jones related that parking was not far from any of the picnic areas. He also indicated that the parking lots have alternate surface materials with grass/gravel strips in the interior bays. Ms. Matason liked the plan. Mr. Hurley thinks the plan is a good one to work from. Ms. Farkas likes the plan but is concerned about the dog park and community gardens together, and the grass areas in the parking lots because of the expense. Mr. Jones related both the dog park and the community gardens are fenced-in areas. He also indicated that this is a green park (a green sports park) with low energy use. Mr. Brumbaugh liked the plan. Mr. Kunkle had four concerns:

(1) For baseball tournaments or for high school uses, there probably should be a spectator seating area. Is there enough room for seating? Mr. Pashek indicated that there is approximately 100' from sideline to sidewalk. (2) An emergency access road is very important. Mr. Jones related that they would try to leave through the Water Authority land; there is a gravel lane there. (3) There should be a cistern for water by the community gardens. Mr. Jones indicated that one destination for stormwater would be a cistern at the Community Gardens. (4) There should be a sanitary lift station near the maintenance building or on adjacent Penn State lands for a sanitary sewer. A lift station will be shown near the maintenance building. Mr. Mascolo asked if irrigation had been considered for the fields? Mr. Woodhead indicated that the scope of work includes that option since it might be a possibility (using Beneficial Reuse Water at some point). Mr. Kurtz indicated it would be good to show where the trail connector would be if the 25 acres are not acquired. Mr. Kunkle relayed a comment from Ferguson Twp. Planning & Zoning Director Trisha Lang that there should be a defined edge on the tract. Mr. Jones indicated that the reason they didn’t plant trees along that edge was because that is where the tract has the best views. Mr. Mascolo asked Mr. Hall what he thought of artificial turf. Mr. Hall replied that he liked artificial turf but it is expensive. A discussion followed about the pluses and minuses of artificial turf. Mr. Klees asked that the costs of this project would have a base cost with separate costs indicated for lights, artificial turf, etc. so a decision can be made about whether to include them. The Community Tennis Association members present indicated that less than six courts would not be desirable. Also, the group reminded the committee that the U.S. Tennis Association is able to provide some capital funding and the local tennis association is willing to do fundraising. Mr. Pashek reviewed the next steps. The comments received will be reviewed and a draft master site plan should be ready for a meeting in January with the base costs without “bells and whistles” and then with extras and related costs. The financing / construction schedule / phasing needs to be determined, whether one year or 20 years. Mr. Brumbaugh asked if we will be able to get a sense of what the park will cost, assuming the road is in place? He also asked if Mr. Pashek was going to come back with costs of the indoor tennis facility? Mr. Pashek replied that while the tennis association had supplied some of that information, there is often a public/private partnership involved in various park developments. Sometimes the park is developed as a public park where you hope to get donations. Most often the municipality will talk with a sport group and see if there is funding support available before they decide to include that sport in the development. A few items might be lights, artificial turf, buildings, etc. Mr. Klees would prefer to see the worst-case scenario with respect to the cost involving the 75 acres and the 25 acres. A discussion followed as to how the acreage was handled in the agreement. Mr. Klees said that the possible questions to explore are: (1) What features do you have to do to get to meet the original objective? (2) What features do you have to have in the infrastructure to provide the minimum required? (3) What features would be nice to have? He thinks maybe we should start with the basics. Discussion continued about the acreage and dividing it for phasing. Mr. Pashek will provide information on all three parks: Whitehall, Oak Hall and Hess Field. He will provide the plan for Whitehall Road but also provide information on the “best buy” development for fields. He indicated that the best value for the field dollar would be to fix up Hess Field and go forward with the Whitehall Road Parkland fields. Mr. Pashek also relayed that Oak Hall will probably cost the most per field to construct. Mr. Klees indicated he would rather the consultants did not spend too much time on the phasing before the committee saw the big picture and then go to phasing. Mr. Pashek would like to be able to provide information to Mr. Woodhead so he can apply for DCNR grant in April. Mr. Pashek asked if it would help if they supplied costs to Mr. Woodhead and the committee makes some decisions in January. Mr. Pashek then would come back with phasing recommendations in February. A discussion began about the current funding formula and what is and what is not possible. The committee will meet in January to make some decisions so the consultants can move forward.

Mr. Steff asked if Ferguson Township had any problems with field lighting being proposed for Whitehall Road Parklands. Mr. Mascolo and Mr. Kunkle said the township would not have problems with it as long as the lighting met their specifications, and that some neighbors might have some concerns. 7.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:50 PM.

The next regular CRPR/CRRA Board meeting will be on Thursday, December 10, 2009. The next COG Parks Capital meeting will be December 17, 2009. A date for the next Regional Park Planning Committee meeting had not yet been set. (A meeting has been set for Monday, Feb. 1, 2010, 12:15 PM, COG Forum Room).

R:\Home-Office\Regional-Park\Master-Planning\W hitehall_Rd_M SP\Planning_Comm\Summary\PlanningComm_Summary07Dec09. wpd

Centre Region Council of Governments

REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE 2643 Gateway Drive #1, State College, PA 16801-3885 (814) 231-3071 Fax 814.235.7832

W ebsite: www.crpr.org E-Mail: crpr@crcog.net

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris & Patton

Draft Meeting Summary Monday, 1 Feb 2010, 12:15 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. Centre Region COG Building Forum Room

I. COG PARKS CAPITAL COMMITTEE - 2010 REORGANIZATION This section of the meeting summary was approved by the Parks Capital Committee at their 18 Feb 2010 meeting.

II.

REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE

Mr. Klees called the Regional Park Planning Committee meeting to order with the following persons present: - The COG Parks Capital Committee (5) Mr. Dan Klees College Twp. Mr. Richard Killian Ferguson Twp. Mr. Jim Rosenberger S.C. Borough Mr. Cliff Warner Harris Twp. Mr. Jeff Luck Patton Twp. -The Centre Regional Recreation Authority (6) Ms. Kathy Matason College Twp. Ms. Sue Mascolo Ferguson Twp. Ms. Donna Conway S.C. Borough Mr. Roy Harpster Harris Twp. Mr. Chris Hurley Patton Twp. Dr. Donna Ricketts SCASD - Municipal / Regional Staff (non-voting) Mr. James Steff COG Executive Dir. Mr. Mark Kunkle Ferguson Twp. Mr. Adam Brumbaugh College Twp. Ms. Amy Farkas Harris Twp. Mr. Thomas Kurtz S.C. Borough Ms. Kathy Ulincy Finance Mr. Ronald Woodhead Director CRRA/CRPR Mr. Greg Roth Park Supervisor Ms. Diane Ishler Office Manager Mr. Jeff Hall Rec.Sup. Sports & Fit Mr. Sam Thompson CPRP Intern -Others Mr. Paul Rittenhouse Harris Twp. Mr. Dick Mascolo member of the public -Consultants Mr. Jim Pashek and Mr. Dan Jones

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC - None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the December 7, 2009 meeting were approved with one abstaining on a motion by Mr. Rosenberger and seconded by Mr. Warner. Page 1 of 5

OAK HALL REGIONAL PARKLANDS Mr. Woodhead reported that the state grant check for the full $38,000 grant for the Oak Hall Master Site Plan was received on Jan.25. This grant project is officially completed. He also reported that the $185,000 grant applied for in April 2009 for the Oak Hall Parkland construction was not approved. A discussion followed about why no Centre County applicant received funding. Mr. Pashek indicated that the funding for next yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grant is less than it was this year. Later this year, Mr. Woodhead will find out how to apply for grants this year. 5.

HESS SOFTBALL FIELDS COMPLEX PROPOSAL - Update Mr. Woodhead updated the committee on the current aspects of the Hess Field project indicating that more information may be available in time for the COG Parks Capital Committee meeting, Feb. 18, 2010. Mr. Woodhead then reported on two items: Harris Township issued a letter offering $20,000 to assist with the purchase of Hess Field. A lease has been executed between the Hess family and Mr. Dreibelbis so the SC Softball Association can operate the complex as softball fields in 2010. Mr. Harpster suggested that the CRPR Board contact the Hess family through the lawyers because the Hess family wants to sell the property before April to receive a rebate. A discussion followed. Mr. Woodhead will have the Authority solicitor apprise the Committee of any issues that are important to consider as this process goes forward. Mr. Harpster also asks that members of the committee meet with the State College Softball Association to discuss operating the facility if the COG purchases it. Mr. Woodhead indicated that those meetings have not been held but they will be in the near future. He would like the discussion to start on staff level with recommendations coming to the Committee. Mr. Klees asked if this is operational wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it come before the Authority. Mr. Woodhead replied that this was an awkward situation but he thought it would go before the Authority. He also thought that the General Forum action would be linked to the operations. 6.

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS - Master Site Plan Mr. Pashek reviewed where we are in the project. This is the last meeting with the Park Planning Committee; the last public meeting is scheduled for Feb. 23; and there are two more COG presentations with one possibly in March and the last one in April or May. Mr. Jones then reported on two aspects of the project: A. The Soil Profile Tests conducted in December. The purpose of the tests is to determine that there is an adequate soil depth and not just a small amount of soil over rock. The tests found one place where rock was only 1ft under soil with the rest of the 75 acres adequate. The other purpose is to test the ability of the soil to infiltrate storm water and the tests were good. B. Looked at the dimensions of the plan: 1) Tennis - how big should the tennis building be on the plan; it is 320 ft on the current plan. He explained that this is a really big building and presented drawings showing how the building would look with its surroundings when it was first built and then after 20 years when the foliage had time to grow. He suggested that the building should be the same size as the outside courts and a rounded building would look better. He presented drawings of the plan if it included the 25 additional acres and what would be if those additional 25 acres were not purchased and part of the development. Mr. Luck spoke to building an indoor facility. He stated that it should be a multipurpose facility or the committee must be prepared to put up a building for other sports groups who would like to have indoor facilities in the Centre Region. Mr. Pashek replied that it is not a usual practice to make a facility for tennis multipurpose; they tend to be a single purpose building. Mr. Klees clarified that the footprint of a building is shown on the plan in case one would be built there, but it would need an organization paying for the building. A discussion followed concerning providing land for organizations to build indoor facilities. Mr. Rosenberger asked if there are options for another building on this Page 2 of 5

property. Mr. Kunkle suggested moving the site of the building and tennis to the triangular field next to the present site and had tennis pay for the additional 25 acres. More discussion followed. Currently, Ferguson Township Ordinance does not allow an indoor sports facility to be built in the township. Mr. Luck does not want to set a precedent in providing land for organizations. Mr. Klees asked if the building would include restrooms and still fit in the footprint? The building does include restrooms. Mr. Kurtz said the question is whether to give up one outdoor soccer field to gain greater flexibility in building an indoor facility. Mr. Killian stated that putting the building on the plan says the committee is open to having a building there but does not commit what that building would be. Mr. Klees reminded everyone that after the Master Site Plan is adopted it requires a unanimous vote to change it. He also stated that he doesn’t see a building of any kind in the first phase. Mr. Luck thought the committee was not interested in providing indoor facilities as evidenced by early discussions before Oak Hall. He explained that it appeared as a new idea and there doesn’t seem to be enough time to really investigate the ramifications of the decision. It wasn’t until the December 7, 2009 meeting that the building appeared and he missed that meeting. More discussion followed as to whether the building should be called a tennis building or whether there should be a building there at all. Ms. Conway indicated that she understood the outside courts were not needed for tennis; so, if we don’t include the building we waste the space. Ms. Oliver, Tennis Association & tennis instructor for CRPR, indicated that six courts together are necessary for youth lessons. The high school courts used for years are no longer available in the day during the summer and those were the only place that had six courts together. Many of the Committee were willing to support a building being on the plan if it was listed as an indoor sports facility. A discussion continued as to where a building would work on the plan. The feeling was that if an organization paid to have a building on municipal property, then the group had to be open to allowing the same to other sports group willing to pay. Another item to consider when determining where a building would be constructed is the water and sewer. Mr. Klees indicated the simplest thing would be to just say there would be no buildings (except for maintenance) on municipal park land. Mr. Luck asked what was involved in putting a building on the Master Site Plan later. Mr. Jones said there is an official rules for Master Site Plan; the spirit is that you would develop according to the plan. If you have a major change, you would probably have to do another Master Site Plan. Many times some amenities never are completed due to budget changes, etc. Although the discussion was not complete, the Committee moved on to the next item on the agenda. C. Cost estimates, phasing, and funding strategies: Mr. Pashek referred to the Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan cost estimate and the sample funding charts included in the meeting packet. He presented costs for items that may have to be done before Penn State develops or sells the partial next to the road for development. 1) This would include the cost of a temporary road and a fire road exit. 2)Non sports field costs main sign, fence, lighting, maintenance building, sewage station, tree farm, a picnic grove, community gardens, winding path, dog park, perimeter fence, etc.. 3) Center core - building not included in costs, field artificial surface, fields, drainage, stands, lights, gravel paths, regional playground, restrooms, pavilions, etc.. 4) 25 acre option costs. Financing - Mr. Pashek qualified the reports since his expertise is not financing. He obtained some help from a person who knows about financing and from his accountant and some bank employees. There are two options noted. If all three parks were developed at the same time with everything. The other is just sports fields only (walking paths, parking lots, and other things that support the fields). There are two ways: pay as you go or by bond do everything at one time. Based on the current municipal contribution rate, the Everything - Pay as you go would take 88 years and the Sports Fields Only-Pay as you go would take 50 years. Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plan cost estimate is $8,001,670 for 75 acres; optional 25 acres additional $2,450,290. The total for all three regional parks: Whitehall Road Regional Parkland (all 100 acres), $12,810,011; Oak Hall Regional Parkland, $4,745,000; and Hess Field update, $1,175,000; a total of $18,730,011. The Everything - Issue Bonds assumes a 20 year bond term, 4.25% interest rate, and 3% inflation Page 3 of 5

and draws in three years. The municipal contributions increase significantly. Sports Fields Only - Issue Bonds assumes a 20 bond term, interest rate of 4.25%, inflation rate of 3%, and draws in three years. The municipal contributions increase a great deal but not as much as “Everything”. Mr. Klees asked the those present to comment starting with Dr. Ricketts. Dr. Ricketts commented from the SCASD perspective that it is really important for the school district to be connected to determine if there can be a partnership. Mr. Luck speaking as one member of Patton Township related that the future plans do not call for any increase in the regional park numbers. Mr. Klees said he was pretty comfortable with the numbers as it was close to what he had anticipated. If the goal is to be met, bonding is the preference of College Township, but somewhere between “Everything”and just “Sports Field Only”. Mr. Killian stated that “Pay as you go” is more expensive so he doesn’t support this unless no increase in contributions. He would be interested to know the per capita costs to know how much it would affect each person. Sports fields take precedent. Mr. Warner said bond - “Everything”. Ms. Conway ask if the same contractor would be asked to bid on all three projects at the same time. Mr. Pashek indicated there would probably be more than one bid. She ask if it is possible not to do Oak Hall now and develop Whitehall Road Parkland first. It seems like a lot to handle at one time doing all three at the same time, but pay as you go is not good. Mr. Harpster said to move all three projects along. He is in favor of issuing bonds not pay as you go. Ms. Mascolo indicate she was in favor of a bond issue. Mr. Hurley is hopeful and would go with a bond issue. Ms. Matason thinks a bond issue make sense. Mr. Klees asked if phasing over time would decrease the sports contributions. Mr. Pashek indicated he did not know. Ms. Farkas is in favor of a Bond financially but thinks that the Committee has to look at what a person can bare as to cost. She would like to see the Committee explore other creative ways to fund the parks. Mr. Kunkle had nothing to add. Mr. Brumbaugh had nothing to add. Mr. Jones suggested that we keep in mind why we are doing these parks. One of these is the economic benefits, if the longer the development takes the longer it takes to obtain the economic benefit. Mr. Pashek referred to a drawing that indicated how much of the park land would have to be used to put in the radio controlled airplane section. The area encompassed almost the entire triangular field section of the plan. Mr. Klees asked Mr. Pashek or Ron what they needed to hear but haven’t heard. Mr. Pashek indicated that he needed to get a phasing plan and needs feedback. Mr. Klees asked if they have detailed costs for the other projects beside Whitehall Road Parkland. Mr. Pashek indicated the Oak Hall Master Site Plan has one for the Oak Hall Parkland but he didn’t feel comfortable doing one for Hess Field since he does not have a drawing for Hess. Mr. Klees indicated to Mr. Woodhead that at some point we need to take the everything for all three parks on spreadsheet so that we can eliminate as many variables as possible and focus on what is doable. Mr. Woodhead indicated that Mr. Steff and he will bring back to the committee the recommendation for a Master Site Plan for Hess Field. Mr. Woodhead reviewed the meetings: February 16 is the Sports Group meeting; February 23 is the Community Meeting. So, the presentation to the General Forum would be at the end of March. Mr. Pashek asked how we politically sell the Master Site Plan since the funding is unresolved. Mr. Klees said that if the Parks Capital Committee would focus on Hess Field and then in March try to come up with a consensus on the three. Mr. Klees said he would have a hard time making a decision on Hess without the other information. Mr. Woodhead ask if they want to have staff focus on eliminating the variables so a recommendation can be made to the committee. Mr. Klees indicated that between the February, March, and April meetings the staff should present information to allow the committee to come up with what they want presented to the General Forum at Page 4 of 5

the end of April. This would include all the issues previously listed that have to be addressed. There will be an update to General Forum at the end of March and then the final presentation would be in April. 7. Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:15 P.M..

The next regular CRPR/CRRA Board meeting will be on Thursday, February 11, 2010. The next COG Parks Capital meeting will be February 18, 2010. A date for the next Regional Park Planning Committee meeting had not yet been set. .

R:\Home-Office\Regional-Parks\Master-Planning\W hitehall_Rd_MSP\Planning_Comm\Agendas\2010\Feb\PlanningComm_Summary 01Feb10_RPPComm.wpd

Page 5 of 5

Centre Region Council of Governments

REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE 2643 Gateway Drive #1, State College, PA 16801-3885 (814) 231-3071 Fax 814.235.7832

W ebsite: www.crpr.org E-Mail: crpr@crcog.net

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris & Patton

Joint Meeting of The Parks Capital Committee & The Regional Park Planning Committee

Draft Meeting Summary Tuesday, June 8 2010, 12:15-2:15 PM Centre Region COG Building - Forum Room 1. Mr. Klees called the combined meeting to order with the following persons present: - The COG Capital Parks Committee (PCC)(5) Mr. Dan Klees College Twp. Mr. Mark Kunkle (for Mr. Killian) Ferguson Twp. Mr. Jim Rosenberger S. C Borough Mr. Cliff Warner Harris Twp. Mr. Jeff Luck Patton Twp. - The Centre Regional Recreation Authority (6) Ms. Kathy Matason College Twp. Ms. Sue Mascolo Ferguson Twp. Ms. Donna Conway S. C. Borough Mr. Roy Harpster Harris Twp. Mr. Chris Hurley (absent) Patton Twp. Dr. Donna Ricketts SCASD - Municipal / Regional Staff (non-voting) Mr. James Steff COG Executive Dir. Ms. Amy Farkas Harris Twp. Mr. Adam Brumbaugh College Twp. Mr. Doug Erickson Patton Twp. Mr. Tom Fontaine S. C. Borough Ms. Kathy Ulincy Finance Officer Mr. Ronald Woodhead Director CRRA/CRPR Mr. Greg Roth Park Supervisor Mr. Todd Roth Aquatics Supervisor Mr. Jeff Hall Rec. Sup. Sports & Fitness Ms. Emma Stevenson COG Admin Intern - Others Mr. Bud Graham Harris Township Supervisor Mr. Dick Mascolo Resident Ms. Laurene Phillips Community Tennis Assn. Ms. Carol Oliver Community Tennis Assn. Ms. Joan Nessler Community Tennis Assn. - Consultant Mr. Dan Jones Pashek & Associates 2.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC â&#x20AC;&#x201C; none

3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARIES A. The summary of the Feb. 1, 2010 Regional Parks Planning Committee meeting was approved by the RPP on a motion by Ms. Mascolo and a second by Ms. Matason. B. The summary of the May 20, 2010 COG Capital Parks Committee meeting was approved by the PCC on a motion by Mr. Warner and a second by Mr. Rosenberger

Page 1 of 5

4. DISCUSSION ITEM: Report on Visitor’s Bureau Meeting Mr. Klees reported on the meeting with Betsy Howell and Joe Thomas from the Centre County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau (VB). The primary theme that arose from the meeting centered on cooperative efforts, with the possibility of the VB participating in capital funding support and annual operational funding with the understanding that the COG will in turn work with VB to host sportfield events. Mr. Klees also relayed the possibility of the YMCA developing an indoor facility with VB support. Mr. Steff added that the door is open for a partnership if both parties can benefit. Mr. Luck wondered if the VB support would be equal to the standard charge levied for field reservations and use. Mr. Steff relayed that the cooperation could be a more predictable benefit over time. Mr. Klees reiterated the possibility of two revenue streams, one for capital expenses and one for operational reimbursements. Mr. Luck agreed to the benefit. Mr. Rosenberger asked about the VB involvement in fundraising. Mr. Klees outlined the need for a timeframe to commit, along with the necessary language and agreements that would be needed to proceed. Ms. Mascolo asked about the current use of CRPR sport fields by out of town groups and users. Mr. Woodhead responded that most use is currently by Centre Region Residents. Mr. Rosenberger expanded the question to include Hess Field. Mr. Woodhead responded that many of the users of Hess are from out of town. Mr. Klees outlined that with the regional parks, more field space would allow for more options. If nonresidents use the fields, local businesses would benefit and there would be a trickle down effect to the local economy as a third revenue stream. Mr. Klees relayed that this item is not for action at this time, nor is there a timeframe for it. The VB would prefer an opinion, position, or proposal from the COG General Forum that they may take to their board 5. THE WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS – MASTER SITE PLAN A. Schedule: The following proposed schedule was reviewed and agreed to: 1. JUNE 8: The Regional Parks Planning Committee will be asked to designate a layout/facility plan and finalize the Phasing Strategy. 2. June 28: Mr. Pashek will attend the COG General Forum meeting to present the selected layout/facility plan for endorsement. 3. JULY & AUGUST: The draft Master Site Plan & Report will be compiled and circulated for municipal, community, and PA DCNR comments. 4. SEPTEMBER: The Parks Capital Committee will be asked to approve the final Master Site Plan & Report, which will then be presented to the COG General Forum for action. B. The Layout Plan: Mr. Jones reviewed the layout options and posed questions to the committee of whether or not to show the buildings, how to address the inclusion or exclusion of the additional 25-acre plot, whether to show a 75-acre plan or a 100-acre plan, and how to address phasing. In the packet, variant A shows full sized baseball fields, variant B includes a second building, variant C shows only building outlines and notes, and variant D shows only a 75 acre plan. Mr. Jones relayed that the Master Site Plan can have options or alternates, that it’s easier to subtract elements from the plan than to add them, and that options and alternates could also be part of the phasing plan. Mr. Klees asked about the changes required if the 75-acre plan is used, then the additional 25 acres becomes available. Should we have a stand alone 75 acre plan, with a 25 acre plan that can be added? Mr. Jones replied that this could work if the project was to be done piecemeal, and that the phasing of the project could help resolve the issue. Mr. Luck and Mr. Jones discussed a concern over the ability to change the layout – what level of change constituted a need to go back to the General Forum? While the MSP has flexibility built in, how much modification is acceptable, and what needs to be approved? Mr. Woodhead added that any changes would need to be approved by the General Forum, and that DCNR also has a role in the approval process. Mr. Jones counseled to include alternates, whether they end up being built or not. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the layout plan would be impacted by whether the site is 75 acres or 100. Mr. Klees desired a 100 acre plan with phases to the 75 acre limit, then a final phase to take it out to 100. Mr. Jones Page 2 of 5

reminded the group that the phasing could be planned, then later it could be decided not to do certain parts of the phasing. Mr. Luck inquired that if the 100 acre plan is approved, what happens if the additional 25 acres is not obtained? Is the ‘D’ plan the default if the additional 25 acres is not obtained? Mr. Steff related that it would be possible for the General Forum to approved two layouts, one for 75 acres and one for 100 acres. Mr. Jones explained some of the reasoning for the plans as they were currently shown, including the desire to keep similar use fields together while still providing at least a minimum number of several types of field uses. Mr. Klees felt that having two plans for approval may be too confusing for the General Forum. Mr. Rosenberg disagreed, stating that two plans (one 100 acre plan and one 75 acre plan) would be acceptable. Mr. Klees raised the concern about what was needed to continue the project process forward? Mr. Woodhead asked for clarification that variant ‘C’ and variant ‘D’ were to be the focus. Mr. Rosenberger agreed that we should not show the buildings, but show the space where they may occur. Mr. Warner stated that the buildings were not the responsibility of the municipalities. Mr. Klees asked about moving the possible tennis building closer to the northern border on variant ‘C’. Mr. Kunkle inquired about proceeding with the 100 acre plan if the grant for the additional 25 acres was approved. Mr. Klees asked about the DCNR requirements for phasing. Mr. Woodhead responded that those details would be required for approval. Mr. Klees stressed that the site had required infrastructure that needed to be in the early phases of the project, and that some of the funding strategy for the capital expenditures would be required. The phasing should be done so as to complete whole park sections rather that smaller pieces throughout the site. Mr. Luck asked if then the phasing would drive the municipal contributions? Mr. Luck brought up the point that the initial regional needs assessment did not include the new facilities at Circleville and Bernel Road parks. Should the baseball fields then be moved to a later phase? Mr. Jones relayed that the initial thoughts on phasing would be to start at the east and build to the west. This could be interrupted or modified if priorities change. Mr. Klees added that the benefit of SCASD as a partner may depend on including a full sized baseball field earlier in the project. Mr. Jones asked how the buildings should be represented. Ms. Mascolo favored showing the buildings, even if they may not be built. Mr. Jones stated that a dashed line could be used to show a future phase. Mr. Rosenberger liked the idea of showing that without having to commit. Mr. Luck raised the question of extending the opportunity to build on COG lands to any interested sports group, and that this larger issue may need to be decided first. Mr. Rosenberger replied that was more of a financial decision. Mr. Klees replied that there was no obligation to any group with this MSP. Ms. Conway desired to have the buildings shown and Mr. Klees agreed. For the phasing, Mr. Jones used variant ‘C’, depicting building outlines only with notes for the possibility of future buildings. Mr. Klees agreed to use ‘C’, adding the possible Soccer building and asked about how to phase that variant. Mr. Jones replied that this could be shown with boundaries or colors, but that this may be a better question to ask during design development. The current plans and layouts may better serve if they remain more general. Mr. Klees stated that numbers associated with phases may be needed in order to move the project forward. Mr. Rosenberger agreed that some plans may need to change to make the project viable. Mr. Jones asked about the level of detail needed for the phasing estimate. Mr. Rosenberg desired to have a less detailed plan, but a commitment to start. Mr. Woodhead pointed out that there was a very detailed estimate to build to a ‘level of use’ standard, and that with a more accurate plan, the project could stimulate community interest to continue to improve the park. Mr. Klees reiterated the desire to use variant ‘C’ with east to west phasing. Mr. Warner pointed out that partner groups may drive the phasing. Mr. Klees would like to see the consultants come back with a phasing plan. Mr. Jones replied that variant ‘C’ could be used as a starting point, then modified as needed. Mr. Erickson added that after each phase is complete the MSP could be updated. The MSP should be a living document that is updated as phases are completed. Mr. Woodhead asked for clarification that the desire of the group was to use variant ‘C’ with the tennis courts as shown. Ms. Nessler raised a concern about moving the tennis courts if the building was to be built and that by building the courts closer to the northern edge it would save money in the long run. Mr. Mascolo stated that the new building could just go right over the courts. Mr. Klees stated that the courts could be pushed to the north, leaving a green area by the road. Mr. Luck reiterated the need to ask groups to identify themselves if they wished to commit to a desire for land or a building and that the opportunity needed to be extended to Page 3 of 5

all sports groups. Mr. Jones stated that there would be an ongoing review of the project. Mr. Rosenberg added that with the flexibility of the MSP, possible future use and partnerships could exist. Mr. Klees asked for clarification for approval. After discussion, Mr. Warner moved that: “The Regional Park Planning Committee recommends to the COG Executive Committee Plan ‘C’ as revised by these discussions for consideration by the General Forum.” Mr. Rosenberger seconded and all agreed. C. The Regional Park Phasing/Funding plan Mr. Woodhead requested a clarification on the committee proposal regarding ‘total municipal contribution’ vs. ‘total project cost’. Mr. Rosenberg stated that it should be the contribution level of the municipalities, so that additional opportunities for improvements are not hindered if other groups wish to contribute. Mr. Luck agreed that it should be the ‘total cost to the municipalities of $8-10 million.” Regarding Hess Field, this discussion was held to later in the meeting. Mr. Klees initiated the discussion related to the proposed 2011 budget and municipal contributions so that staff may prepare the budget. He recommended a higher contribution for 2011 than previous years. Mr. Rosenberg asked that the contributions ramp up over a period of maybe three years. Mr. Klees stated that by calculating the desired changes and applying the COG formula, he found a range of between $450,000 and $475,000 as a recommendation for the budget. Mr. Luck stated that we could increase the contribution now and build up the ‘war chest’. Mr. Rosenberg reiterated the desire to increase the contribution over time. Mr. Warner agreed, adding that other municipal obligations may disappear during that time. Mr. Klees added that the actual project cost will be a consensus when COG decides to borrow money for the project. Mr. Luck added that an increased contribution now would mean less of a borrowing later. Mr. Klees moved that “The Parks Capital Committee Recommends a 2011 Municipal Contribution of $475,000 for the regional Parks.” Mr. Rosenberger seconded. Mr. Klees, Mr. Rosenberger, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Kunkle (for Mr. Killian) agreed. Mr. Luck abstained. 6. HESS FIELD: Mr. Klees introduced the Hess Softball Field Discussion The proposed schedule was to: JUNE 8: Seek Consensus to decide if/how the process will move forward JUNE 28: Act on the Articles of Agreement to permit the acquisition. A provision should be included to have safety-related projects start in September to allow for play in 2011 JUNE 28: Authorize the execution of the Sales Agreement (with the specified $5,000 payment) JUNE 28: Authorize the solicitor to prepare for the closing to be held on or before September 1, 2010. JUNE 28: Authorize the land survey (boundary & topo). JUNE 28: Begin work on the Master Site Plan. Act on a proposal from Pashek & Associates. Allow safety improvements to be made before the MSP is completed. Mr. Klees brought up concerns about spending money to repair items that may be later demolished pending the MSP. Mr. Woodhead stated that the MSP is the end point, and that phased reporting would be used to ensure that money spent for safety repairs would be in accordance with the MSP. If MSP details are not available, some fields may not be available for play in 2011. In consideration of the final draft of the Articles of Agreement for General Forum Action on June 28, Mr. Kunkle (speaking for Mr. Killian) relayed that Ferguson Township will not approve the Articles until the Whitehall Road MSP is approved. Mr. Graham stated that if the sale of Hess Field is not complete by September 1, Harris Township will pull out of the Regional Park Funding. Mr. Steff asked about moving the decision up to the August General Forum Meeting. Mr. Graham thought that was too close to September 1. Ms. Farkas felt that this was not fair to either party in the Hess Field sale. Mr. Klees hoped that if all municipalities were working toward a common goal agreements could be reached, even if they were all at the same meeting in August. Mr. Fontaine relayed that there would be a schedule conflict with the Borough Council for the August General Forum Meeting and that they would be late. Mr. Steff suggested an August meeting with only 2 agenda items and that the meeting begin late to accommodate Borough Council members. Mr. Fontaine asked if the General Forum could agree to the layout option at the June meeting, and Mr. Woodhead agreed. Mr. Woodhead asked if Ferguson Township would agree to the Hess sale if the General Forum approved the Page 4 of 5

layout, or whether they desired the entire MSP to be approved. Mr. Kunkle could not respond on behalf of his Board.. Mr. Graham stated that time would be required to finalize all items needed for the sale of Hess Field. Mr. Klees asked if all required meetings and documents could be prepared in advance, in anticipation of a positive decision, and Mr. Steff agreed to schedule the closing. Mr. Erickson stated that the Whitehall Road MSP should be completed earlier than August. Mr. Luck moved that â&#x20AC;&#x153;The final draft of the Articles of Agreement for the sale of Hess Field be relayed to the General Forum as an information item only for their meeting on June 28â&#x20AC;?. Mr. Rosenberg seconded, and all approved. Mr. Steff asked if the General Forum should be asked to Authorize the Parks Capital Committee to finalize a sales agreement to be executed by the COG chair to expedite the process. Mr. Klees asked to determine this at the June COG General Forum meeting. Mr. Fontaine recommended that this be sent to the COG Executive Committee and held in Executive session as it relates to a real estate matter. Regarding the proposal from Pashek and Associates to prepare the Master Site Plan for Hess Field, Ms. Farkas presented some discrepancies in the proposal. Examples she gave were sewer service provisions when the complex is located outside the sewer service area, a pathway to Route 45, the listing of two municipalities when the complex resides only in one, and soil type analysis. Mr. Klees asked if these issues could be addressed and clarified. Mr. Luck moved to approve the proposal, pending clarification, to the Executive Committee. Mr. Warner Seconded, all approved. Regarding the proposal for land surveying services at Hess Field, Mr. Luck moved to accept the low bidder, Mr. Warner seconded, and all approved. 7. PREPARE FOR THE COG GENERAL FORUM MEETING The committee wished to continue the discussions for Whitehall Road and Hess Field within the current COG structure at regular meetings. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:15 PM. The next regular CRRA/CRPR Board meeting will be on Thursday, June 10, 2010 The next COG Parks Capital meeting will be on Thursday, July 16, 2010. A date for the next Regional Park Planning Committee meeting has not yet been set.

Minutes prepared by Todd Roth, Diane Ishler & Ronald W oodhead R:\Home-Office\Regional-Parks\COG-ParksCap-Committee\2010\2010-07-15\Reg_ParksCap_Summary_08Jun10.wpd

Page 5 of 5

Centre Region Council of Governments REGIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMITTEE 2643 Gateway Drive #1 y State College, PA 16801-3885 www.crpr.org Phone: (814) 231-3071 y Fax: 814. 235.7832 y E-Mail: crpr@crcog.net

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS – MASTER SITE PLAN

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY MEETING #1 Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 7 PM at the COG Building, Forum Room A sign-in sheet was provided at the door for recording those in attendance and for signing up for future email updates. Updates regarding the park planning process will continue to be posted at www.crpr.org. Written suggestions (including via crprlive@gmail.com) submitted within 10 days were also included in this meeting summary (Attachment #2). Welcome and Introductions (with 55 in attendance, including 4 staff and 2 consultants) Ronald J. Woodhead, Director CRPR, welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave some basic information and history about the project. Ɣ Regional Park Committee Members From the COG Parks Capital Committee: Dan Klees, College Township Dick Mascolo, Ferguson Township; James Rosenberger, State College Borough From the Centre Regional Recreation Authority: Sue Mascolo, Ferguson Township Donna Conway, State College Borough; Kathy Matason, College Township Chris Hurley, Patton Township Ɣ Staff members: Ronald J. Woodhead, Director CRPR; Jeff Hall, Recreation Supervisor - Sports & Fitness; Jim Steff, COG Executive Director; Diane Ishler, Office Manager Ɣ Project Consultants: Jim Pashek, Dan Jones With a PowerPoint show, Mr. Jim Pashek, Pashek Associates, presented an overview of the regional park planning processes. He related that the planning process will use both public input and professional expertise. They will also use the data collected during the Oak Hall Regional Parkland planning process, inputs from these meetings, draft a recommendation to the Regional Parks Planning Committee, then make a final recommendation at a public forum in the spring. He discussed talked about the differences between the Oak Hall Parklands and Whitehall Road Parklands. Mr. Dan Jones, Pashek Associates, reviewed Whitehall Road parklands, 100 acres (75 already owned and 25 that may be purchased in the future by Ferguson Township). He reviewed the site analysis that included the soils, access, slopes, location, surroundings, and the Page 1 of 7

specifics of each site (potentials and challenges). The analysis is much more than just facts, but includes cultural and natural information about the land. Mr. Jones indicated they had five goals for this project: They wanted to 1) respect the environment, 2) respond to the community 3) put the right set of uses together in the right place 4) be economically feasible and 5) the park to be beautiful. The plan should also be orderly and logical. Mr. Pashek related that the three, initial Concept Plans for Whitehall Road Parklands with some paper, pencils, and markers on each table. He asked attendees to gather at the tables to discuss what they liked or disliked about the concept drawings using the questions listed on the back of the Agenda. After 20 minutes, he brought the groups back to share their answers. A list of those suggestions is attached to this summary (Attachment 1). After this, Mr. Pashek indicated that the planners would review all suggestions provided from the public, staff and interest parties. He reminded those in attendance that these were Concept Plans rather than detailed park plans. With these suggestions, a finalized Concept Plan can be prepared for the Regional Park Planning Committee, and a public forum will then be held to obtain more suggestions. The meeting concluded at 9:05 PM. Attachment #1 Attachment #2

Compiled Group Suggestions Written Comments & suggestions submitted thru 31 Oct 09.

Funding assistance to acquire the regional parklands and to prepare the Master Site Plans has been provided by the five participating municipalities and by a grant from the PA DCNR "Community Conservation Partnership Program.â&#x20AC;? Whitehall Road Regional Parklands _ Master Site Plan: PA DCNR Project #BRC-TAG-13.6-589

APPENDIX #1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Suggestions Provided by Each Group (Compiled)

Concept 1: Plus +

Minus

! " #

Concept 2: Plus +

Minus Page 2 of 7

Concept 3: Plus +

% Í˛

& ' ! & & & ! % Í˛

( &

Minus

( ) * + &

General Comments:

! ! Í˛ ! , & ( " ' ' -#

. ! / . 0 1 ) 2

"3Í˛4# 5 & 6 & &

- 7 7 &

! 89 & :

& 7 & - ; ) & - ( " #

APPENDIX #2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Post-Meeting Suggestions Here is my input regarding the Whitehall Road 3 concept plans, if I am reading them correctly: Plan 1: pro--direct road con--folks closest to Blue Course would be subject to more "traffic" in a park atmosphere Plan 2: pro--winding road can look attractive if it is used as a footpath con--inconvenient if it is for cars Plan 3: pro--spur idea seems effective. It reminds me of current Tudek park, with main road and a spur to left for new tennis courts, a small spur to new pavilion on right, and long main lot Page 3 of 7

cons--none that I think of. Questions for group as I cannot be there tonight: Will there be a biking/walking path through to Rte 45 to access Shingletown? Will there be a space or need for community vegetable gardens such as the well-used plots at Tudek? Will there be a space dedicated for other community or local garden group, much as the Butterfly Garden is a specialty at Tudek? thank you for your time and efforts, Sincerely, Jessica Clothiaux Hi, I was unable to attend the planning meeting last evening but I would like to comment on the addition of year-round tennis facilities. I believe that year-round tennis facilities would be one of the best additions to our current park features. Tennis is a great sport and one that is enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities. I live close to the tennis courts at Orchard Park and use them frequently with my 12 year old son. He has come to love tennis and it is something fun that we can do together. The Orchard Park courts are busy much of the time, and we have had to wait to play there on several occasions, so more courts (covered or not) would definitely be used. There just aren't many options for playing during the winter months or when it is raining, so a covered facility would be, to quote my son, "totally awesome!" Personally, the thought of being able to play year-round again (I used to when I lived in the Philly suburbs) just makes me want to run out and buy new tennis shoes :) Thanks for listening! Jill Skipper (State College Borough) I noticed the announcement about the community input for the new park near Whitehall and Blue Course, but was unable to attend. One thing that I think our community really needs is a bandshell. Of course, I have in mind an architecturally-pleasing, and acousticallyfunctioning bandshell reminiscent of the one in my hometown (Davenport, Iowa), which I've included pictures (enclosed). It is the home of the Bix Beiderbecke Memorial Jazz Festival and a Blues Festival each year, and hosts many touring and local bands. It is one of the centerpieces of the local arts community. This kind of facility could serve many State College area groups: State College Area Municipal Band, Nittany Valley Symphony, local high schools, Penn State, summer music series, music festivals, arts fest, outdoor theatre, touring bands, etc. Parks are for more than baseball and soccer, and I just wanted to put in a vote for the cultural side of our community, Best regards, Eric Patterson (Patton Twp.) Baseball field orientation: Optimum orientation is to locate home plate so that the pitcher is throwing across the sun and the batter is not facing it. The line from home plate through the pitcher's mound and second base should run east-northeast. Also there should be a batting cage or series of batting cages for the facilities at both the Oak hall and Whitehall facilities. Also here is document (there are many about field dimensions to back stop and other things. http://www.keepamericaplaying.com/pdfs/Field_Layout/How_to_Layout_a_Baseball_Field.pdf thank you. Tom Glass TO: The Regional Park Planning Committee I attended the October 21 regional park planning hearing and I was very surprised to hear a discussion of night time lighted facilities and indoor facilities (buildings). I am very opposed to the use of this park for nighttime (lighted) use, and I am very opposed to the construction of indoor facilities. My reasons are cost, security, noise and light pollution, night time traffic, construction traffic, and disrupted view-scape. The proposed conceptual plans as presented to the public at this time do not reflect indoor facilities (buildings) and do not indicate lighted facilities for night time use. I Page 4 of 7

believe the community at large would be very unhappy to incur the on-going expense and disruption of these buildings and lighted facilities. I believe that the Regional Park Planning Committee should clearly specify that this facility is indeed a “park”, and is not an athletic building complex. My request for the Regional Park Planning Committee to plan for a water feature on the adjacent Conservation Area tract is (shown below). Best regards, Scott Thompson (State College Borough) LETTER TEXT FOLLOWS… TO: The Regional Parks Planning Committee 10/21/2009 FROM: Scott Thompson SUBJECT: Whitehall Road Park and Conservation Area Tract As a resident of the State College Borough, I am requesting that the Regional Parks Planning committee, and the COG general forum, include consideration of a “water feature” in the planning process for the Whitehall Road Park and adjacent Conservation Area Tract. The water feature could be a pond, man-made spring, or small wetland. The Conservation Area tract appears to be an ideal candidate for the location of the water feature. This would be a passive recreational, vegetated, visually appealing feature for the park area. I believe it is consistent with the intent of the Conservation Area tract, which is to protect the watershed supplying the Water Authority’s well field. Older topographic maps of this location indicate the presence of an intermittent stream draining the Conservation Area tract. One possible embodiment of the “water feature” is a minor wetland populated with native species such as black willow, birches, elderberry, arrow-wood, smooth alder, and native wildflowers and grasses. A trail could encircle the wetland. Additional benefits of the water feature include a destination for beneficial reuse water, protection of water tables for water authority well-fields, restoration of perennial flow in Slab Cabin creek, and a visually appealing boundary for the proposed park. Thank you for your consideration Scott Thompson (State College Borough) Hello: These plans look beautiful! I am very excited about the possibility of making indoor tennis facilities available in the Centre region. Since this region only allows about 6 months of outdoor play (excluding the days that rain prohibits play), an indoor facility would be a huge asset to the community. Year round tennis is a sport that people of all ages can participate in and enjoy. Tennis also appeals to diverse members of the community, and as such helps to draw the community together. Thanks for adding tennis courts to the plan; please consider indoor facilities for this sport. Best, Nancy McClure I was not able to attend the Oct. 21 meeting but have studied the 3 different plans on the web site. I would urge the group to cover the 6 tennis courts, regardless of which plan. We desperately need tennis courts but without a cover, people cannot play year round. This is sadly lacking in the Centre region as frequently expressed. The numerous advantages of year-round tennis as a lifetime sport have been well documented. In addition, leagues and tournaments cannot function without back up space. This would not only be a hardship to players but would reduce the tournaments and therefore, income generated from the courts. State College is centrally located and should be holding tournaments and leagues, which presently are non-existent to minimal. There should be an office for collecting revenue and rest rooms close to the courts. Delaying the cover would be more expensive and would necessitate resurfacing the courts and making adjustments to the area, making the project a complete overhaul at a later date. I urge you to study this and "go all out" now. I would be glad to consult with you on this. My phone # is 814-466-(xxxx). Thank you. Dr. Joan Nessler

Page 5 of 7

I was unable to attend the community meeting last week but appreciate you posting the Concept Plans for different park layouts. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m delighted to see that 6 tennis courts are included on all three plans â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more tennis facilities are needed in town. Above all else, however, our community more year-round tennis facilities. I couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tell from the plan whether these courts are intended to be covered by a bubble in the winter months but that strikes me as a critical element in the planning process. Also, recreational tennis players have a tendency to hit balls outside of the fenced-in area occasionally so it seems important to consider what is in the surrounding areas. For example, Concept Plan #1 has a community garden next to the courts and I suspect the gardeners will not appreciate tennis players stomping through their gardens to fetch stray balls. In that respect, Plans #2-3 are superior. From a parking perspective, I thought Concept Plan #3 did the best job of arranging the facilities to be close to different parking areas. Thanks for your efforts to develop a park that will meet community needs. Sincerely, David Conroy (Ferguson Township) To whom it may concern: Please see my thoughts/comments/suggestions about the Whitehall Concept Plans. The number of full sized soccer fields is appropriate at the current level as shown on the plans. It may be preferable for the fields to be stacked versus in a long line so it makes it easier to move from field to field quickly and see more games. Baseball would probably prefer the same structure. We need lighting for the fields so we can maximize the usage of fields. I do not see a concession area which would be a great way to raise money. As spread out as this is it might be best to had two areas. Overriding concerns would be drainage issues. There is not enough parking for when you run a tournament. Usually when one is ending the cars have not yet moved. But the new players are starting to arrive. Parking lots can get congested. Maybe an overflow parking lot should be included. Drinking fountains are important. An area that is hidden for the dumpsters, etc. Maybe an area that EMS can park that is central and accessable. I can see times when there will be football, soccer and baseball at the same time. It would be great to be able to share a common ems. Independent storage sheds so the various organizations can keep their stuff stored locally. This park will be a great addition to the Centre Region. Dave Pepper, President, Centre Soccer Assn. To whom it may concern: This plan looks fabulous. I am involved in a number of different community groups that I think could make great use of this park/space including Centre Soccer, State College Lions Youth Football, and CRPR Fitness classes. My thoughts/comments/suggestions about the Whitehall Concept Plans are below. The number of full sized soccer fields is appropriate at the current level as shown on the plans. Lighting a few soccer fields and turfing a few would give more use-time and allow for play on some fields longer into the Fall and earlier in the Spring. With the money being spent on the facility it seems a shame not to be able to utilize it from 6-11pm in September/ October/ November. Even lighting a few fields increases the scheduleable time significantly. A dedicated concession area would be great. Even if sales are not permitted, sometimes for road races, soccer tournaments etc there is a need to provide some form of food for officials runners etc. A place that is clean would be nice. Electricity too. Kind of like the concession shed at South Track field. As with Haymarket 2 and Fogelman, storage space is important. If groups could have their large items stored at the park that would be ideal. Separate lockable storage for each group would be great. Consider the parking when having multiple events or a soccer/baseball tournament. Often a number of events are schedules back to back in order to maximize the field schedule. Having overflow parking might help during these transition times, between games, etc. Also Page 6 of 7

some tournaments might be able to take advantage of charging $1 for parking (donation) as a way to make $$, or as a way to pay for the wages of people assigned to control parking (attendants). A single obvious access point would help with this. Then also an exit/entrance for EMS only, in case of emergency. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Jill E. Garrigan After attending a part of the meeting and looking at the 3 different concepts, we believe the best plan for the tennis facility is concept one. However, we would like to see the tennis courts be covered year round. And with covered courts you will need to add more space to the tennis facility in order for the courts to be covered. We believe that having indoor tennis courts would be a huge asset to this community. There are no indoor courts available to tennis players here in state college other than the courts at the university. The university courts are almost impossible to get court time and are very costly. Tennis is becoming more and more popular among all age groups. With year round tennis you can have many leagues, such as USTA, play all year. Weather no longer becomes a factor which helps eliminate make ups and equipment like rollers for water, brooms for leaves, etc. Covering the courts will also help with maintenance and resurfacing of the courts which is a substantial expense. I hope you take these suggestions into consideration and realize that there are a number of individuals from this community that agree with me in that indoor courts would be a huge asset to this community. Thank you, Teri and Mark Mancuso To Whom It May Concern: I agree with Dave Pepperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comments (above). Also is there any way to consider an indoor soccer/ athletic facility? Thanks, Ford McNutt To Whom It May Concern: I would like to express an interest for indoor tennis facilities at the Whitehall Rd. site. It would be very nice to be able to have my children as well as the rest of the family all year round. There seems to be more of a demand for this sport than in the past. Please consider this request seriously. Thank you, Janine Surovec

Page 7 of 7

Serving the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton

WHITEHALL ROAD REGIONAL PARKLANDS MASTER SITE PLAN

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY MEETING #2 Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 9 PM at the Mt. Nittany Middle School, Cafeteria Welcome and Introductions (with 78 residents in attendance plus 5 staff and 2 consultants) Ronald J. Woodhead, Director CRPR, welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave some basic information and history about the project and the forming of the COG Parks Capital Committee. Ad Hoc Regional Park Committee: Dan Klees, College Township Council Centre Regional Recreation Authority: Sue Mascolo, Chair, Ferguson Township; Roy Harpster, Vice-Chair, Harris Township Donna Conway, State College Borough; Staff: Ronald J. Woodhead, Director CRPR; Jeff Hall, Recreation Supervisor-Sports & Fitness; Jim Steff, COG Executive Director; Diane Ishler, Office Manager; Sam Thompson, Intern Project Consultants: Jim Pashek, Dan Jones Note: Updates regarding the park planning process are posted at www.crpr.org. Suggestions emailed to crprlive@gmail.com through 5 PM Monday 1 Mar 2010 were also included as part of the meeting records (and compiled in a separate document). Mr. Pashek, using a PowerPoint presentation, explained the Master Site Planning Process. He told the group that the plans are not finished but need input from everyone. That input will be taken back to the committee so the Master Site Plan can be finalized. A Master Site Plan is not a construction document and what actually gets developed sometimes changes depending on funding, priorities, etc. Mr. Jones thanked the people for coming to the meeting and for trusting them (the consultants) to prepare the Master Site Plan for both regional parks. He indicated that the Whitehall Road Site is relatively flat with one woodlot. Mr. Pashek asked what should be placed in this park? Interviews were held previously with sport group leaders and CRPR staff to find out what the needs were. He reviewed the sports field analysis of field demand and supply. Later in the planning process, tennis was added as that group made their needs known. He reviewed the approved Oak Hall Master Site Plan and what they discovered through the process of developing the plan. At that time, it was assumed that Hess Softball Field Complex would still be in operation with their 4 softball fields. When it was announced that the fields at Hess might be lost due to being sold, a review was done and the thinking is comparing the costs per field, it is a good investment for providing the needed softball fields (rather than building new). Mr. Jones started with the Whitehall Road Capacity Diagram was prepared in the process of developing a Master Site Plan for Oak Hall. The capacity drawings only showed how many fields were Page 1 of 4

thought to be able to fit in this park, not what they thought it should look like. The goals of the project have been to respect the environment, accommodate as much as possible, be cost effective and have a great identity. The mission of the regional parks is to provide needed athletic facilities with complimentary items (roads, maintenance facility, keep circulation simple, etc.). He reviewed the most recent Master Site Plan for the Whitehall Road Parkland. Mr. Pashek then went over the costs for these parks - assuming that Hess Field was acquired and the 25 acres adjacent to Whitehall Road Parkland was acquired. The total to develop all three parks is $18,950,000. He proposed that the sports groups could raise $1,000,000; the naming of different portions of the facilities could raise $1,000,000; there is currently $1,700,000 in the regional parks fund; and the balance ($15,000,000) could be a bonded over 20 years. This scenario would have all three parks built within 3-5 years. He talked about the funding and how everyone must work together if these parks are to be developed. He then asked the people at each table to work together to look at the plans and discuss what they like about the plan and what they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like about the plan. Each table took about 15 minutes to consider the plan and the questions. At the end of 15 minutes, Mr. Pashek asked a person from each table to share what the others had said about the plans. A listing of those suggestions / comments is attached. After each table provided their input, Mr. Pashek reminded everyone that a tax increase to pay for these parks would not be popular; each municipality is fighting tight budgets and reduced government funding. This means people who are interested in these parks being built must attend the official meetings of their townships, COG, etc. and express interest in seeing the parks developed. Mr. Klees explained as an elected official and also as a member of the COG Parks Capital Committee, that funding is tight and it will take everyone working together and some creative ways to finance these parks. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.

Meeting Summary prepared by Diane Ishler, CRPR Office Manager Attachment A Attachment B See Website

Items Liked / Items That Can Be Improved (from each Group Spokesperson) Roster of Attendees Written Comments submitted by 5 PM on 1 Mar 2010

Page 2 of 4

APPENDIX A – Suggestions Provided by Each Group (Compiled) Plan Items Liked / Good

Access, Circulation Plan Interim Plan for Use Tennis Complex (year round) Meet Community Needs Bring Visitors to Region Financial Potential Winter Sports Use Community Gardens Picnic Groves Hess Field (Critical that we buy) Indoor Tennis (Revenue Generating) Layout of Park Specialty of each park Flexibility of fields Separation of Passive Uses Balance of Uses Little League Support Rectangular Fields Artificial Surface Hess Field (Volunteers) Indoor Tennis (can use for volleyball & fitness classes) Softball & indoor tennis are revenue generators. Cost per person seems reasonable

Plan Items Needing Improvement • More storage • Dog park – too large / too small • Was a demand assessment prepared for the fields? Yes • Cost per person/family • Bike path connections • Secondary (non-sports) uses for kids • Public / private partnerships • Lights at Hess Field • Flexibility of Diamond fields • Number of Diamond fields • Increase Court Games • Needs to be affordable • Support by the hospitality sector? • Balance of Public / private needs / use • Flexibility of fields each year/season • Need speed control through the park • Connections of local and regional trails • Widen the perimeter path for use by bikes • Traffic signal needed at Whitehall Road • Level off fields & seed for play until parks are developed. • Add lights on the tennis courts • Did not see need for Community Gardens • Asked for play areas /play areas on plan • Asked about the tree shadows – would it bother ballplayers? • Need adult areas – tennis all year would be good for adults • Asked how people of Patton Twp. feel about parks being far away? • Hess Field should remain for adults & youth • Play surfaces in tennis building should allow multipurpose use. • Asked about winter sports (at Oak Hall) • Develop a sequence and start the visualization • Don’t forget basketball and lacrosse • Prioritize cost benefit of different units • One access for large events • Make Hess Field more productive • Parking – paved or not? • Allow space for less-organized sports • Lights at Oak Hall • Did not like “All 3 parks or Nothing” development plan. • Should include a multi-purpose building

Page 3 of 4

APPENDIX B â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Roster of Attendees 78 Residents Signed the Roster (plus 5 staff & 2 consultants) Barbara First Stanley Stone Richard Mandel Frank W. Schmidt Betsy Brett Mary Ann Harvey Jim Eckess Mike Brett Scott Thompson Shawna Doerksen Kathy DiMuccio Elizabeth Goreham Maria DiMuccio Rod Frazier Mary C. Schmidt Jonathan P. Mathew Karl Mierzejewski Brian Hatman Carol Zeiss Blake Gall Mike Nierle Ron Smith Jann Duck Elizabeth First Sam Phillips Barry Evans John R. Clayton Carol Oliver Linda Gall Cheree Jones Jeff Deitrich Jeffrey Brownson Mike Herr Pete Kauffman John Marsden Diana Farr Jerry Fisher Dan Klees Donna Conway

Eric Spielvogel John First Dean Amick Patricia Mandel Rick Tetzlaff Kelly DiMuccio Taylor Greer Tobin Short Laura Adams Fran McDermid Bill Keough Ron Weis Allan Swope Pat Trimble Matthew Musser Rick Rex Kim Pro Patty Craig Bill Drawl Bruce Rittenhouse Rachel Schwab Bob Fedorchak Jill Gomez Malissa DeLong Margie Swoboda Judy Covalt Bobbie Hayes Paul M. Rittenhouse Mary Conner-Righter Chris Kiratzis David Conron Misty Simco Craig McMullen Rick Hall Cynthia Koss Ann Parry Dick Mascolo Sue Mascolo Roy Harpster

Page 4 of 4

Appendix E: Newspaper Ar ticles and Other Public Communications

Costs change Centre Region park plans - Local | Centre Daily Times - Stat...

1 of 2

http://www.centredaily.com/2010/04/25/v-print/1935265/costs-change-p...

Print This Article Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 Comments (10) Recommend (0)

Nick MalawskeyTwo months ago, the Centre Region Council of Governments General Forum received an unwelcome surprise when the price tag to develop three regional parks — one each in Ferguson, College and Harris townships — was pegged at about $19 million. Since then, COG’s Parks Capital Committee has been busy at the drawing board, trying to bring that number down while maintaining the integrity of the regional park concept. The concept is that the three parks would each complement the others: •Plans are to develop the 68- acre Oak Hall park in College and Harris townships into adult softball fields, walking trails and a dog-park area. •The 75-acre Whitehall Road site, in Ferguson Township, along with an additional 25 acres to be purchased from Penn State, would become home to fields for soccer and baseball. •The vision also calls for purchasing the 21-acre Hess Softball Field Complex in Harris Township from the John Hess estate, and renovating it in time for the 2011 softball season. It is, planners say, an all-or-nothing proposition. Remove one of the parks from the plan and the coalition of municipalities will likely fall apart. By the same token, cut back the development of each park to save money and again, the coalition could fall apart. On Monday the committee will present a compromise plan — one with a smaller price tag but without the support of two of the three host municipalities. The issue is how much each municipality will have to pitch in to support the regional park plan. Representatives from State College borough, Patton and Harris townships have endorsed a plan that would cap municipal spending at $8 million to $10 million, financed in part by bonds that would be repaid over 20 to 25 years. College and Ferguson township representatives favored a plan that would have a wider spending range, $8 million to $12 million, and could spread the larger resulting bond issue out to 25 to 30 years. Each plan would cap the amount each municipality would contribute to the regional park project at roughly double their current levels. And both plans would allow for outside funding in the form of grants, donations or individual municipal spending to fully develop each park. The difference is what could or would be built at each park. An $8 million project proposal that has been considered would build basic infrastructure at each park — gravel parking lots, basic field facilities — but no amenities, such as bathrooms

04/26/10 11:05 AM

Costs change Centre Region park plans - Local | Centre Daily Times - Stat...

2 of 2

http://www.centredaily.com/2010/04/25/v-print/1935265/costs-change-p...

or picnic pavilions. Increasing that amount to $10 million could allow for construction of bathrooms, playground facilities and picnic shelters at Whitehall Road and Oak Hall, and walking trails. Currently, the municipalities provide a total of $368,000 for regional parks funding. The breakdown: State College borough, $97,007; College Township, $75,292; Ferguson Township, $93,224; Harris Township, $29,829; and Patton Township, $72,341. On Monday, the General Forum is being asked to consider the proposal for park funding and refer it to the member municipalities for additional review and comments. The proposal could then return to the General Forum on May 24 for adoption or additional discussion.

Have the CDT delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.

Get the TV Book delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.

04/26/10 11:05 AM

COG "Regional Parks" Update

Page 1 of 1

February 2010

Centre Region COG "Regional Parks Update" A "CRPR ActiveNews" Newsletter

Whitehall Road Regional Park Planning Continues Community Meeting #2 set for Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010, 7 PM at the Mt. Nittany Middle School Cafeteria The 75-acre parksite is located near the intersection of Blue Course Drive and Whitehall Road in Ferguson Township. An adjacent 25 acre tract is proposed for purchase by the COG and has been included in the park planning project (for 100 acres total).

Thank you for subscribing to our periodic updates on the COG Regional Parks Initiative. The new parks are focused on the need to provide additional active recreation facilities in the Centre Region.

Community Meeting #2 will be held at the Mt. Nittany Middle School Cafeteria on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010, at 7:00 PM. The Regional Park Planning Committee invites residents to comment on the plan and assist with making the parks a reality. The discussion will review the approved plan for Oak Hall Regional Park, the proposed plan for Whitehall Road Regional Park and the proposed acquisition of the Hess Softball Field Complex. The meeting agenda and the proposed park plan is available HERE. NOTE: In the event that winter weather causes a school closure or earlydismissal on Feb. 23, the Community Meeting will be rescheduled. The planning project is being funded by the 5 participating municipalities and a $40,000 grant from the Commonwealth. The Master Site Planning Process for both regional parks is being coordinated by Pashek Associates. The first public hearing was held on Oct. 21, 2009. Since the two regional parks will be complementary, community data gathered during the Oak Hall Park planning process is being used for this plan.

Since this process involves the cooperation of five municipalities, our goal is to maintain the high level of interest in these new parks. The Regional Parks Planning Committee hopes that you will continue to follow and support this important, cooperative process.

Community participation remains a vital part of CRPR operations and planning. All residents are invited to explore the CRPR website, enjoy each municipal park, participate in CRPR activities and in the regional park planning process.

Sincerely,

Please feel free to forward this newsletter using the link below.

Ronald J. Woodhead Director Centre Region Parks & Recreation / Centre Regional Recreation Authority

About Centre Region Parks & Recreation Over 40 years ago, the municipal leaders of the Borough of State College and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton created a regional agency to provide cooperative services for local park operations and recreation programs. Since that time, continued municipal and resident efforts have expanded that cooperation to include recreation opportunities for all ages with a broad range of activities for every season. The motto of Centre Region Parks and Recreation, "Where Everyone Plays," accurately portrays the four decades of recreation opportunities valued by Centre Region residents.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs021/1102578452607/archive/1103054359220.html

8/26/2010

COG "Regional Parks" Update

Page 1 of 2

Centre Region COG "Regional Parks Update" A "CRPR ActiveNews" Newsletter

November 2009

Oak Hall Regional Park Plan Approved 68-acres at the foot of Mount Nittany During 2008 & 2009 the Master Site Plan was prepared with the assistance of Pashek Associates within funding provided by the COG municipalities and a state grant. The planning process involved a number of public hearings, meetings with community recreation groups, interviews and public surveys - and that input provided the basis for the facilities to be developed at both regional parks. The information gathering was an important aspect since the two regional parks will be designed to serve the needs of the region far into the future and to complement each other, rather than duplicate existing park facilities in the Centre Region.

Thank you for subscribing at a prior meeting to our periodic updates on the COG Regional Parks Initiative. The new parks will be based upon the need to provide additional active recreation facilities in the Centre Region. Since this process involves the cooperation of five municipalities, our goal is to maintain the high level of interest in these new parks. The Regional Parks Planniing Committee hopes that you will continue to follow and support this important, cooperative process. Sincerely,

Ronald J. Woodhead Director Centre Region Parks & Recreation / Centre Regional Recreation Authority

The final master plan reflects the project goals: 1) Accommodate a program of active recreation. 2) Provide a program of complementary recreation activities. 3) Respect the opportunities and limitations of the site. 4) Respect the adjacent community. 5) Create a beautiful and dignified park space that will improve over the years, find acceptance in the community, and become a valued asset to the region. The plan provides for three adult softball fields, playground and pavilion area, perimeter walking trail, off-leash dog park, open meadow areas, sledding area and parking. The plan was officially approved by the COG General Forum on 26 Oct 09. The entire Master Site Plan Report is available HERE for review. The construction schedule for this park will be finalized pending the completion of the Master Site Plan for the Whitehall Road Regional Parklands.

Whitehall Road Park Planning Underway Oct. 21 Community Meeting Summary Posted The 75-acre parksite is located near the intersection of Blue Course Drive and Whitehall Road in Ferguson Township. An adjacent 25 acre tract is planned for purchase in the future by Ferguson Township and will be included in the park planning project (for 100 acres total). The Master Site Planning Process for this park is now underway by Pashek Associates. The planning project is being funded by the 5 participating municipalities and a $40,000 grant from the Commonwealth. Since the parks will be complementary, community data gathered during the Oak Hall process is being used for this planning process. The first public hearing was held on 21 Oct 09. The meeting agenda and summary are posted HERE. It is expected that Concept Plan Version #4 will be presented to the Regional Park Planning Committee during December, and another Community Hearing will be scheduled in early-2010 to receive comments. An email notice will again be distributed when that hearing is scheduled. Community participation remains a vital part of CRPR operations and planning. All residents are invited to explore the CRPR website, enjoy each municipal park, participate in CRPR activities and in the regional park planning process.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs021/1102578452607/archive/1102832000579.html

8/26/2010

Meeting Documents

Page 1 of 3

Centre Region Council of Governments

"#$ $ %& " '(%( ) *+, - $.# $ / !. $

!" #$ % #$$&& . /" -$ 0 '( " (1

. /" -$ 0 %1 .; (1

' ( )*

2% 3" " 2' 4 5/ .. 6 - # -/6 + 2& 4 5/ .. .7 5 5/ $" 28 . - !"$ 9 - . 2: 5 - -

2% " "- " )%1 !, 2' 5<" - . .#.- = . 9 - >#? )@( !, 2& 9 -- + $ 5 = . 9 - >#? )&& !, A . 9 -- + $ + 5 ; " .

2% .; " )%' !, 2' == #$ - )%1 !, 2& '((% ;-? '((1 .= + $ 5/ $" - )%8 !, 28 '((:A'((C 9 -- + $ - - )&8 !,

. /" -$ 0 %@ * 5 (10 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ?

+ ( )*

. /" -$ 0 '% 3 (10 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ?

& ,#- $# , % &&$#,

" #.- B

% + '(%(0 %'B%: 0 +. " ..

) -" .>,

A 5 .== 5 - =. '(%(0 A - '(%( $ -0 / - .= / . - A 5. $"5 . / "- -- - $ $? .

. . $ 0

http://www.crpr.org/parks/Regional-Pks/MeetingDocs/Meet_Docs.html

8/26/2010

Meeting Documents

& .% &&$#,

Page 2 of 3

2% " = . % + '(%( )D@ !, 2' *

) . ; , 2& - .#.- )%@ !,

2% " = . %C + '(%( )* = , 2' .#.- $ -. " .

2% ; - $ .- - - )"#$ $ % # '(%(, 2' . - 2& . "

2%? " = . %C '(%( )* = , 2'? E# $ $ 2&? #$ = . -/ --.5? 28? + 5 - - ;?' ? 5 )&:( !, F 2:? 9 -- + $ 5 - .= A * = %

2% " = . % # '(%( )* = , 2%! " = . %: # '(%( )* = , 2'

. >#? .

2'! + "-. >#? !. ." / .

2' !. ." / .

2'* . >#? .

2' 9 - >#? .

2% " = . C 3" '(%( 2' . + 5 # . - 2& # 5 + .#.- 28 9 -- + $ 5 - .= ) #$ $,

/" -$ 0 %C + '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " .. & .% &&$#,

/" -$ 0 %C '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " .. " & # % &&$#,

/" -$ 0 % # '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " .. & .% &&$#,

/" -$ 0 %: # '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

& .% &&$#,

/" -$ 0 '( '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

& .% &&$#, /" -$ 0 %: 3" '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

& .% &&$#, /" -$ 0 %1 " '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

2% " = . %: 3" '(%( )2' 2&

- ; , 28 -. " . . ## .; 4/ / . $

/ " / + ! " A - . 2% )'?: ! *+, A - . 2' )&?: ! *+,

& # , %

!" % ,,#, #$$&& . . $ 0 %8 # (1 . . $ 0 %' 5 (1

' ( )*

+ ( )*

2% 9 -- + $ ; " . .# 5- )DD !, 2' -#. - - . " 5 # . - )%1% !, ) -" .>,

) -" .>,

) . ,

) = $ ; - -" .>,

http://www.crpr.org/parks/Regional-Pks/MeetingDocs/Meet_Docs.html

8/26/2010

Meeting Documents

Page 3 of 3

9 -- + $ ; - . . ?0 %1 5 (1

2% * = " - = . %8 # (1 2' * = " - = . %' 5 (1 2& 9 -- + $ - " = . %1 5 (1 28 . - >-

. .

1 .; (1 -" .>

2% * = - #? . ? " - %@ * 5 (1 2' * = - . ? " - @ * 5 (1 2& ! = $ * - . " 28 ; .

%? ? - " )+ ?, '? - #? . ? " ) $ , &? ? * ;? .#.- ) # ? '', 8? " 5 # . - A ? - +" $ :? * = 5 - .= D? .#.- $ - @? - .#.- ''3" '(%( )% !,

. . $ 0 @ * 5 (10 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

. . $ 0 % + '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " ..

. " -$ 0 C 3" '(%(0 %'B%: 0 ! $ ?0 +. " .. " 5 . 5 ) *+,

- #" 5 A=" $ $0 " 5 # 5 - ; : " 5 # -? G '(%( . . 5 . " /.

http://www.crpr.org/parks/Regional-Pks/MeetingDocs/Meet_Docs.html

8/26/2010

Whitehall Road Regional Parklands

Page 1 of 3

Centre Region Council of Governments

$+ 01#$&1 %% & # , % !% , "

) $ 2 + ) # .= # $-,

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

01#$&1 %% ' " 5.# .= 4. K <" - +. .#.- - ) *+0 (?': !, =. #. 5. -" = -? . $& 34 4 B / = - -"

$ # .#.- -J / # .#.- - > ; > $ $ ; " $? -" .= / <". . - -"

$ - ; 9 )D@ !0 *+ =. ,? . $& 4 5 4 B ! - $ "#. / # .#.- - -"

$0 5.

.= 8 5 $ .== 5 - $ & " 5 # - - 5 $ / =. .> =." = - =. ; >-B A ; . * - A . . - 5? A L $-5 # 5/ 5 - A -/ --.5 - / . .

> 5. $"5 /.- ; >- $ / 5. $ . . / +. " ? . $& 6 5 4 B / . .

; > $ / =." = - $ 5. $ $ . / # . . %D 3" (1 / / = .= -/ --.5 - $ / . A .A E5 $ # 5 .= H:C0C%( # "- H&0((( =. # . 2% . - ; - . ? . $& 76 5 4 8 / +. " " ."- ## .; $ / 5. $ . .= / - # .

. -/ --.5 -? / - > 5 "$ . / / @:A 5 5 $ / $7 5 ':A 5 5 )=. =" " # $-,

01#$&1 %% ' I / $ 5. 5 $ - .5 -- '((C '((1 =. / 9 . $- = . -0 -" ; - $ ; >- - -. "- $ . " $ / - # ? 5 9

. ; > / =. . ? I 9 . ; > / & #.- $ =. 5. -? 9 : + ' ;

1 < 2 + ' / 0 ' ' = 7 744 = 6 844

- $ - > ; $ . / # " $ / $ ; .# .= / - =. / > . # )@: 5 -, .== 4/ / . $ ! " ." - * ;

$ / 9 . 4 $ -$ 0 '% 5 (10 @B((A1B(( / . +. " .. 0 'D8& > * ; 0 . 0 ? / - # - $ $ . 5. # / - =. / 9 . # $-?

1 )=. '% 5 (1, ' )'( ! *+,

" )%(D ! *+,

9 $+ . . $ 0 @ * 5 '((1 . / "#$ = . / $-5 # 5/ 5 - . / >. - 5 / 9 / $ 5 . ? ! - $ . 5. - $ / $ 5 ; $ - 5 / 0 + / > " > 2 ' / ? / $ = - / - # .#.- $ / =. .> = 5 -B I * . $A-/ # $ #. = $- ):, =. -.= . - 0 - M $ =. ." / $ $" #

http://www.crpr.org/parks/Regional-Pks/2-Whitehall_Rd_Intro.html

8/26/2010

Whitehall Road Regional Parklands

I I I I I I I I I I I

Page 2 of 3

5 " #. = $- )%%, =. -.55 0 =.. 0 5 .-- 0 " 0 " = - 0 = $ /.5 ' . ; 5 - > / # 5 5 # ; . -0 # ." $ - $ - .. - . # E )%' 5." - . , & # - > / $ .#A.== M. . " $ *. - ; $ >..$ .

> # / - 5 $ " - / $ =. / "-- # ! > K > #/ - - . 5. #. -"- =. # = 5 -?

@ 2 + ' / / A < 1& &?

$+ 7 ' .,#$: &&$#, + ' / " / 01#$&1 %% & # , % ! 2 + ' 73 ) 74 4? * = - . 2' )-/.> .>, .= / # .#.- $ - > - # - $ $ $ -5"-- $? C% $ ; $" -

$ $?

4/ / . $ . $- * = - . 2'B 5 9 . ; > / A-5 # ) *+ '?@ !,

. " 2' &, ) *+, =. + ? '&0 '(%(

. " 2'

1 $ " = . + ? '&0 '(%(

" % ' ". : = . + ? %D0 '(%( ) *+,

)&: - $ - 9 =. , # "" $ %

. " 2' ". : ) *+, = . + ? '&0 '(%( 0 / ' ) *+,

% : .$ % , ' / & ' 'C 3" '(%(0 / # .#.- $ % =. / 4/ / . $ . $ > - ## .; $ / +. " ? / ." > - 5. $ $ / . - .

. C 3" '(%( $ > # / 5. # . .= / $ = - #. $" 3" ? / ." - ; 9 ) *+0 '?C !,? & '

( ) * ( ( )

/ > "$& "#$& % , & $> ' . ' ' 73 5 74 4

. $ 0 'D 3" '(%(0 / . .

> # - / $ = " . / +. " )@B&( / ! $ ? +. " .. ,? *" / E . / 5/ " 5 # > - $ . # .; $ 5. - . / $ = A =. 5 . / +. " . '& " '(%(?

http://www.crpr.org/parks/Regional-Pks/2-Whitehall_Rd_Intro.html

8/26/2010

# % $

! * +< = ! > " ## # # $ X[]^ ` + { ! } ~ ! { ^ ~ + {

> '* * ## $ # $ X ^ * } ~ ! ]

` ! ! +< ! ! * ~ ~ ^ { ^= !

*~* ~ +<

! =

> " ! + ; ## < #$ = # > X } +< = ^ ! { ! ^

= !

*~*

= ` *~* *~* X] } ^

Appendix F: Practice and Game Field Analysis and Spreadsheets

Football/Lacrosse Centre Bulldogs Football State College Lions Football CRPR Flag Football Centre Youth Lacrosse

Soccer (based on spring league) Short Field Full Field (Travel)* *games and practices each week

Softball Leagues ASA Softball CR Coed Church Softball Girls Slow Pitch Adult Slow Pitch

Baseball Am. Legion Teener/Babe Ruth Centre Sluggers Lemont Ducks Adult Baseball SC Little League

Game Field Analysis

Total

2 2 2 2 4

1.5 2

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

1 2 1 2 3

2 3

2 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 2.5

7 7 19 4 26

138 19

56 16 9 8 14

1 8 8 11 70

0.75 0.75 1 0.5

15 5

4 2 5 2 1

0.5 1.25 0.75 2 18

0 0 0 0

0 0

8 4 10 4 2

0 4 2 5 9

0 0 0 0

0 0

4 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

3.5 7 9.5 4 16.5

138 28.5

56 16 9 16 28

0.5 8 8 11 87.5

Analysis of Weekly Need versus Available Time Allotments for Games Available Plus Fields Time (Full field Time slots additional Average # slots Hours per of games Number of equivalent allotted for practice times needed s) rainouts per week Teams game

10.5 10.5 14 7

210 70

56 16 15 20 14

6 15 9 24 216

7 3.5 4.5 3

72 41.5

-8 -8 -4 0 -16

5.5 3 -1 8 119.5

0.5 0.25 0.32143 0.21429

7.90952

5.14286 2.76667

-0.5333 -0.5333 -0.2667 0 -1.0667 -2.4

0.46 0.25 -0.08 0.67 9.96 11.3

Surplus/ Deficit Surplus/ Time Deficit Weekly Time Slots available slots Fields

Pre-season

Total

2 2 2 2 4

1.5 2 3.5

1.5 1.5 3

2 2 1 2 3

2 3 5

2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2.5 4.5

1.5 1.5 1.5

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5

7 7 19 4 26

138 22 160

8 14 22

56 16 9

1 8 8 14 70 84

0.75 0.75 1 0.5

15 5

2 1

4 2 5

0.5 1.5 1 2 18

Some exceptions are made based on information provided by individual leagues.

*Time slots available per field are based on typical amounts of practice times for each sport Baseball - 14 Softball - 15 Soccer - 14 Football/Lacrosse - 14

Football/Lacrosse Centre Bulldogs Football State College Lions Football CRPR Flag Football Centre Youth Lacrosse

Soccer (based on Spring League) Short Field Full Field (Travel)

Soccer

Adult Softball Leagues ASA Softball CR Coed Church Softball Recreational League Softbal Girls Slow Pitch Adult Slow Pitch

Baseball Am. Legion Teener/Babe Ruth Centre Sluggers Adult Baseball SC Little League

Practice Field Analysis

14 14 19 8 33

276 66 342

16 28 44

0 112 32 18

2 16 16 28 175 203

10.5 10.5 14 7 24.5

210 70 280

20 14 34

80 16 15

6 18 12 24 216 240

-3.5 -3.5 -5 -1 -8.5

-66 5 -61

4 -14 -10

-32 -16 -3

4 2 -4 -4 41 37

-0.25 -0.25 -0.3571 -0.0714 -0.9286

-4.7143 0.35714 -4.3571

0.26667 -0.9333 -4.1

-2.1333 -1.0667 -0.2

0.33333 0.16667 -0.3333 -0.3333 3.41667

Analysis of Weekly Need versus Available Time Allotments for Team Practices Available Surplus/ Fields Deficit Surplus/ (Full field Time Time Deficit equivalent slots Weekly Time Hours per Practices Fields* s) needed Slots available slots practice per week Teams

1 4.0

2 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Total Fields needed

1 rectangular field

5 - 8 full size soccer fields that can be divided for short field use

4 - 6 softball fields

2 larger fields for older players and 1 challenger field

Estimated need based on analysis and specific conditions

Appendix G: 2002 CRPR Needs Memo

Appendix H: Sample Maintenance Plan

MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARKS and FACILITIES (Revised 3/5/03)

I. ATHLETIC FACILITIES: COMPETETIVE FIELDS A. Turf 1. Mow outfield turf twice per week during league play at a height of 1.5” to 2”. Mow turf at least once per week during non-league play. 2. Mow baseball turf infields 3 times per week at a height of ¾" to1.5" during league play. 3. Mow athletic field alleyways and grounds at least once per week at a height of 2”. 4. Aerate athletic turf areas 4 to 6 times per year and more often for heavily used areas. 5. Top-dress athletic fields twice per year with a clean sand/organic mixture. 6. Fertilize athletic fields 6 times per year (2 times during the spring green-up, 2 times during the summer, and 2 times during the fall) with 1 pound of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. Coincide 1 fall application with winter over-seeding. Test soil annually to determine the proper ratio of fertilizer needed. 7. Over-seed athletic fields in the fall when scheduled play is during the winter/spring months. Use seeding rate of 8 to 10 pounds of Perennial Rye seed per 1,000 sq. ft. on baseball/softball outfields and soccer fields. Over-seed baseball infields with Perennial Rye seed at 15 to 20 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. Apply Bermuda seed to declining turf at a rate of 1 to 2 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. in the spring for recovery. 8. Apply 1 pre-emerge herbicide application in the spring and 2 post-emerge applications in mid-summer to athletic turf as per manufacturer’s instructions. 9. Apply fire ant bait to athletic fields at a rate of 1 pound per acre once in the spring and once in the fall. Use pesticides as needed on the fields. 10. Apply pelletized gypsum annually to athletic fields at the rate of 1 ton per acre. B. Skinned Infields 1. Construct skinned infields using a sand/clay mixture to form a solid uniform surface for each sport to be played on. 2. Use amendments on infield soil and surface, as each sport and the budget will allow. 3. Grade infields to allow for proper drainage. 4. Water, drag, line, and rake out skinned infields for games during league play. 5. Rake, level, fill holes, and pack pitcher mounds and home plate for games during league play. 6. Remove rocks, dirt clods, and debris from the play areas daily. 7. Inspect bases, home plates, and pitching rubbers daily for damage and wear. Replace damaged bases as needed. 8. Broom, rake, or power wash dirt build-up and lips around the fields as needed.

Maintenance Standards

Page 2

C. Soccer Goals 1. Inspect goals weekly. 2. Re-anchor goals as needed. 3. Repair or replace torn or tattered nets as needed. D. Bleachers 1. Inspect bleachers weekly for damage and repair as needed. 2. Clean bleachers and trash receptacles daily during league play and weekly during non-league play. E. Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for operation and damage and repair as needed. 3. Lighting audits are the responsibility of the facility user or league. F. Fencing 1. Inspect fences once per week and record damage. 2. Repair damaged hardware, gates, rails, and fabric as needed. 3. Replace bent fabric fencing as budgets allow. G. Restrooms 1. Clean and restock restrooms with paper products daily. 2. Repair lights and restroom facilities as needed. 3. Inspect restrooms daily for damage. 4. Remove graffiti immediately. 5. Restrooms will be brought into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act as the budget allows. II. PLAYGROUNDS A. Play Equipment 1. Check play equipment and surrounding play areas weekly and repair as needed. Notify supervisor of follow-up work or materials needed. 2. Perform official monthly inspections on play equipment and surrounding play areas. Record any deficiencies and schedule repairs. 3. Isolate any hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. B. Surfacing 1. Check fall surfaces weekly. 2. Remove debris and level the surfaces as needed. 3. Add fall surface material as needed to stay within ASTM and NPSI standards. 4. Repair or replace damaged rubber cushion surfaces as soon as possible. 5. Inspect fall surface for drainage problems after heavy rains. Fall surface should be free of standing water within 24 hours.

Maintenance Standards

Page 3

C. Borders 1. Inspect playground borders weekly and repair as needed. D. Decks 1. Inspect decks weekly. 2. Replace wood planks as needed. E. Benches 1. Inspect benches weekly. 2. Replace wood slats as needed. 3. Repaint or restain benches every 3 years. III. PAVILION/SHELTER FACILITIES A. Pavilions 1. Inspect monthly for any structural, electrical, plumbing, and equipment damage and make repairs as needed. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and repair as soon as possible. 2. Clean facility before every rental. 3. Mow and trim the grounds weekly during the growing season. 4. Repaint interior every 3 years or sooner depending on deterioration. 5. Repaint exterior as needed. 6. Perform monthly pesticide treatment for ants, mice and other pests. B. Shelters 1. Clean weekly or after each use. Pick up ground litter, debris, and remove any hazards. 2. Inspect weekly to ensure that lights, electrical outlets, and fountain/hose bibs are operational. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and repair as soon as possible. 3. Inspect weekly to ensure it is structurally sound and has no loose, damaged, or missing parts and repair as needed. 4. Mow and trim grounds around shelters on the same 10-day schedule as the rest of the park. C. Tables 1. Clean tables weekly. 2. Inspect weekly for loose, damaged, or missing parts and hardware and repair as needed. D. Grills 1. Clean grills and remove old coals weekly. 2. Inspect weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as needed. 3. Inspect weekly for fire hazards such as low limbs and debris and remove it immediately.

Maintenance Standards

Page 4

E. Trash Receptacles 1. Empty trash barrels (pull liners) if more than half full or sooner if it has a strong odor or is attracting numerous insects. 2. Wash out barrels monthly or more often if needed. 3. Inspect receptacles weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as soon as possible. 4. Clean areas around receptacles and roll-off containers as needed. F. Restrooms 1. Clean and restock restrooms daily during pavilion or shelter use. 2. Inspect restrooms weekly to ensure that lighting, electrical, and plumbing fixtures are operational. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and make repairs immediately. 3. Repaint restrooms and make other repairs as needed. 4. Remove graffiti from restrooms immediately. IV. TENNIS COURTS A. Surfacing 1. Clean litter and debris from court surfaces weekly and remove any hazards. 2. Repaint or resurface courts when worn areas exceed 20% of court or when scheduled as per “resurfacing plan”. B. Nets 1. Inspect nets weekly to ensure they are properly hung with no tears or missing hardware. 2. Replace nets if they are tattered or excessively worn. C. Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on the availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for proper operation and damages. 3. Replace burned lamps when 10% or more are out. 4. Conduct lighting audit as needed to ensure uniform coverage. D. Fencing 1. Inspect fencing weekly and repair as needed. 2. Replace fencing that is bent, sagging, or excessively damaged as funding is made available. 3. Inspect windscreens weekly to ensure they are tightly hung with no tears and replace torn or tattered screens as needed. V. BASKETBALL COURTS A. Surfacing 1. Clean litter and debris from court surfaces weekly and remove any hazards. 2. Repaint or resurface courts when worn areas exceed 20% of court or when scheduled as per “resurfacing plan”.

Maintenance Standards

Page 5

B. Goals and Backboards 1. Inspect goals and backboards weekly and repair as needed. 2. Replace torn or tattered nets as needed. C. Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for proper operation and damages. 3. Replace burned lamps when 10% or more are out. 4. Conduct lighting audit as needed to ensure uniform coverage.

VI. SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS A. Nets 1. Inspect nets weekly to ensure they are hung properly with no tears or missing hardware. 2. Replace tattered or worn nets as needed. B. Surface 1. Inspect court weekly to ensure a level surface and that it is free of trash and debris. 2. Add sand and till surface as needed. C. Borders 1. Inspect borders weekly and repair as needed. VII. PONDS A. Water 1. Check aerators weekly and repair as needed. 2. Remove trash and debris from the around the ponds edge weekly. 3. Remove trash and debris from the pond water as needed. 4. Stock ponds according to the Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Urban Fishing Program. 5. Pond vegetation will be addressed in the Pond/Waterways Management Plan. (To be developed for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) B. Fishing Piers/Decks 1. Inspect piers and decks monthly and repair as needed. 2. Remove trash and debris weekly. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. C. Benches 1. Inspect benches monthly. 2. Replace wood slats as needed.

Maintenance Standards

Page 6

VIII. PARKS: GENERAL STANDARDS A. Grounds 1. Mow and trim grounds on a 10-day rotation. 2. Pick up litter and trash weekly. 3. Sweep and stripe parking lots as needed. 4. Check for hazards and correct them as soon as possible. B. Drinking Fountains 1. Inspect fountains weekly. 2. Repair water leaks as soon as possible. 3. Install fountains in appropriate location and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. C. Signage 1. Inspect signs weekly. 2. Replace or repair damaged or worn signs as needed. 3. Repaint wood signs every three years or as needed. D. Ornamental Plants 1. Change out plant beds with seasonal color twice per year. 2. Check irrigation systems weekly and repair leaks as soon as possible. 3. Remove trash and debris weekly. E. Walkways 1. Inspect walkways weekly. 2. Remove trash and debris weekly. 3. Edge walkways on a 10-day rotation. 4. Remove weeds and grass from sidewalk cracks and expansion joints as needed. F. Trash Receptacles (random) 1. Empty trash barrels (pull liners) if more than half full or sooner if it has a strong odor or is attracting numerous insects. 2. Wash out barrels monthly or more often if needed. 3. Inspect receptacles weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as soon as possible. 4. Clean areas around receptacles and roll-off containers as needed. G. Ornamental Steel Fencing 1. Inspected fences monthly. 2. Make repairs as soon as possible. 3. Repaint ornamental fences every 3 years or as needed. H. Chain Link Fencing 1. Inspect fences monthly. 2. Repair as soon as possible.

Maintenance Standards

Page 7

I. Wood Fencing 1. Inspect fences monthly. 2. Make repairs as soon as possible. 3. Repaint wood fences every 3 years or as needed. J. Lights: Security and Exterior Facility Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Report electrical problems to Facility Maintenance or the Electrical Department for repairs. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. K. Bridges 1. Inspect bridges monthly and repair as needed. 2. Apply a water sealant to wood planks annually. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. L. Athletic Practice Areas 1. Pick up litter and debris weekly. 2. Mow and trim grass every ten days or sooner at a height of 2 to 2.5 inches. 3. Top-dress practice areas with dirt as needed to maintain a uniform surface. 4. Inspect soccer nets, goals, backstops, and fencing monthly and repair as soon as possible. M. Irrigation (turf) 1. Inspect irrigation weekly. 2. Repair leaks and adjust heads/rotation as needed. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. N. Irrigation (landscape) 1. Inspect irrigation weekly. 2. Repair leaks and adjust heads/rotation as needed. O. Picnic Units 1. Inspect picnic units weekly. 2. Clean picnic tables weekly. 3. Empty trash receptacles weekly. 4. Empty coals from grills weekly and inspect grill areas for fire hazards such as low limbs and debris and remove it immediately. 5. Sweep picnic slabs weekly. 6. Repair picnic tables, grills, and trash receptacles as needed. P. Metal Benches 1. Inspect benches weekly and repair as needed. 2. Repaint or restain benches every 3 years.

127

Appendix I: DCNR Green Principles for Park Development

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation Green Principles for Park Development and Sustainability

Principle #1: Maintain and Enhance Trees and Natural Landscaping Natural landscapes provide vital undisturbed habitat for plant and animal species, some of which may now be threatened or endangered. Projects of all types can preserve and enhance these habitats by incorporating natural landscaping which is the use of an aesthetic variety of primarily native plantings well adapted to the local climate and soil. Natural landscapes can provide a cost effective alternative to conventional turf grass lawns. Preserving existing natural vegetation including rare and valuable natural area remnants (wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands) is a fundamental purpose of natural landscaping. 2 The existing vegetation on the site should be protected and properly managed. Below are some concepts to think about when designing natural landscapes. Natural landscaping with a variety of native trees, shrubs, grasses and wildflowers requires less maintenance once the plants are established. This reduces maintenance costs, noise and emission pollution from lawn-maintenance equipment, and minimizes the environmentally detrimental effects of pesticides and fertilizers. A well established natural landscape requires little to no watering, unlike turf grass lawns that need regular watering. While not maintenance free, a well-established natural landscape requires less time and money for ongoing maintenance than conventional landscapes. Protecting Existing Features: Mature trees enhance air quality and reduce pollution, enhance water quality and reduce erosion, and are energy savers. Mature trees give a site special qualities that take decades to replace if lost. Therefore, protection of the root zones of mature trees is particularly important during excavation of a project site. To protect the root zone it is recommended that any excavation occur outside the perimeter of the tree 5 canopy. Topsoil is the most fertile portion of soil and the most valuable. â&#x20AC;&#x153;It requires 500 years under natural 6 conditions to produce an inch of topsoil.â&#x20AC;? The natural fertility of topsoil promotes healthier grass and reduces the amount of fertilizer required to establish landscape plantings. Therefore one of the most important steps during construction and planting projects is to retain as much existing topsoil as possible. The best option is to stockpile and reuse the topsoil instead of removing it from the site. Using the existing topsoil not only saves money, but also minimizes disturbance that could encourage the growth of invasive plants. Local and regional greenways are excellent and appropriate locations for natural landscaping. Many 2 greenways contain rivers, streams, or other waterways. In these locations native vegetation (ideally a variety of native trees, shrubs, grasses and wildflowers) planted in buffer strips adjacent to the stream provides wildlife habitat, bank stabilization, and water quality benefits. Buffer strips protect natural 1 resources from human impacts and filter stormwater pollutants that could flow into streams. To provide the maximum benefits a buffer should be 100 feet or more on each side, although smaller buffers will still provide some benefits. Floodplains are areas of concern that should be protected from development. Floodplains function in that they reduce flood velocities and flood peaks, reduce erosion potential and impacts, provide a broad area for streams to spread out and for temporary storage of floodwater, reduce sediment loads, filter nutrients, process organic and chemical wastes, and moderate water temperature. Planting native vegetation in 8 floodplains helps absorb and slow flood waters. Tree Planting: Forests and urban trees provide multiple health benefits to humans. Trees and other plants make their own food from carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, water, sunlight and a small amount of soil

elements. In the process, they release oxygen (O2) for us to breathe. Managing and protecting forests and planting new trees reduce CO2 levels and increase oxygen; trees also play an important role in 10 stormwater management. Trees also help cool our planet by providing the service of carbon sequestration which happens when trees store carbon in their roots and trunks keeping it from entering the atmosphere. Pennsylvania, through the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) the Bureau of Recreation and Conservation and the Bureau of Forestry has developed a public private partnership, through regional collaboration, to address the loss of tree cover in Pennsylvania. This program called TreeVitalize has established goals to plant 1 million shade trees, restore forests along streams and water protection areas, build capacity for long term urban forest management, establish strong urban forestry partnerships in all 14 metro areas in Pennsylvania, and train 10,000 citizens to plant and care for trees; over a 5 year period. To learn more about TreeVitalize and to find out how you can get involved visit http://www.treevitalize.net/. Why Plant Native Vegetation? Pennsylvania’s native plants are those that were growing naturally in the area before humans introduced plants from distant places. Landscaping with native plants has several appealing factors. Native plants 4 are: • Adapted to Pennsylvania’s soils and climate. • Attract birds and butterflies. • Offer food and shelter for many species all year long. • Require less care and watering when established. • Thrive with less fertilizer and disease control. (Most native plants will not need fertilizer once they are established. When fertilizers are used, they should be of the organic or “slow-release” varieties, should be used no more than once or twice a year, and should be used in as small a 1 quantity as possible. ) • Provide carefree beauty. • Natural predators and diseases can’t compete when non-native plants are introduced. (Most invasive plants are introduced from other continents, leaving behind in their native homeland natural controls like pests, diseases and predators, which serve to keep these species in check. Due to this absence of natural controls, invasive plants reproduce rapidly and can form stands that exclude nearly all other plants. In the process, they damage natural areas, altering ecosystem processes and displacing desirable native plant species.) Composting: Leaves, grass clippings and other yard debris clog landfills, taking up 20-40% of landfill space. However, this so-called waste is actually a valuable natural resource. Once decomposed, this nutrient rich organic matter can be a source of free mulch or can be added to soil as a natural fertilizer. Compost can also help soil retain some of its moisture content. Compost can be made on-site, or can be brought in from a 3 municipal composting facility (sometimes for free). To learn more about composting visit http://www.howtocompost.org/. Grass Maintenance: Cool season turf grass, a staple of traditional parks, should be limited within a sustainable site to humanuse areas such as ball fields and picnic groves. Native cool season grasses, such as Canada and Virginia wildrye, should be used in place of non-native cool season grasses like Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue. Warm season grasses can be planted for wildlife habitat and as attractive landscaping. 1 Native warm season grasses include big bluestem, little bluestem, and switchgrass. Even if you keep some area in lawn, much can be done to lessen environmental problems: • •

Reduce or eliminate the need for pesticides by practicing Integrated Pest Management. Use a mulching mower so that clippings can remain on the lawn and provide nutrients as they decompose.

• • • • •

Where the lawn is small, use a non-powered reel mower. Modern models of the reel mower are much easier to use than the older models. Keep gas-powered mowers in efficient operating condition (well-tuned, sharp blades) and raise the cutting height to 3-3.5" during the hot summer months to keep the grass roots shaded and cooler, reducing weed growth, browning, and need for watering. If you don't use a mulching mower, compost excess grass clippings in your yard and later use it as a soil amendment around trees and shrubs. Learn to tolerate some weeds or a greater variety of plants in the lawn. Don't over-fertilize. A slow-release organic fertilizer applied once, in the fall, is usually sufficient.

Enhancing and protecting meadows that contain native grasses and wildflowers is a great way to attract wildlife. Warm season grasses are prime habitat for grassland and ground-nesting birds; birds such as bobolink, Eastern meadowlark, and grasshopper sparrow require at least 25 acres of grassland for survival. However, other birds, such as goldfinch, field sparrow, Eastern bluebird, Eastern phoebe, and Eastern kingbird, do occupy smaller grasslands. Common meadow wildflowers include black-eyed 7 Susan, sunflower, aster, and goldenrod. Invasive Plant Removal Invasive species are species that are non-native to the ecosystem under consideration, and when introduced cause or are likely to cause harm to the economy, to the environment, or to human health. Land managers who are faced with the daunting task of managing or controlling invasive species on natural lands rely on resources like the “Invasive Exotic Plant (IEP) Management Tutorial for Natural Lands Managers” in order to implement effective management, control and education programs http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/index.htm. This tutorial provides a "one-stop-shop" for natural resource managers who are interested in organizing on-the-ground efforts to prevent, manage 9 and control IEPs.

References: 1. DCNR. Creating Sustainable Community Parks. A Guide to Improving Quality of Life by Protecting Natural Resources. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/publications/ 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Source Book on Natural Landscaping for Public Officials. http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/toolkit/chap1.html#PURPOSE 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Region Green Landscaping. http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/garden/what.htm 4. National Wildlife Federation. Native Plants. American Beauties- Why Use Native Plants? http://www.abnativeplants.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.why/index.htm 5. Santa Monica Green Building Program. Inventory, Mark and Protect Topsoil, Trees and Vegetation to be Retained. http://greenbuildings.santa-monica.org/construction/topsoiltree.html 6. Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District Natural Resource Conservation Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Importance of Topsoil. http://www.druby.net/joomla/images/pdf_docs/topsoil.pdf 7. Natural Lands Trust. Meadows in Southeastern Pennsylvania. http://www.natlands.org/uploads/document_28200794705.pdf 8. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Water Fact Sheet. Natural Benefits of Floodplains. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/7/pubs/pdfs/fctsht50.pdf

9. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Invasive Exotic Plant Tutorial for Natural Lands Managers. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/index.htm 10. Maryland Department of Natural Resources- Forestry. The Benefits of Urban Trees. Urban and Community Forestry: Improving Our Quality of Life. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Forests/Publications/urban.html

Additional Resources: Arbor Day Foundation. The Value of Trees to a Community. http://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm Earnst Seed Company. http://www.ernstseed.com/seed_mixes.aspx National Wildlife Federation. Create a Certified Wildlife Habitat. http://www.nwf.org/backyard/ The University of Tennessee. A Landowner’s Guide to Native Warm-Season Grasses in the Mid-South. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/pbfiles/PB1746.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GreenScapes Alliance. http://www.epa.gov/greenscapes/ http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/garden/

Principle #2: Connect People to Nature When acquiring, planning, or developing land or water for public use (whether a park, trail, greenway, playground, or community pool) there is a concept called “human well-being” that is addressed in the 1 “Sustainable Sites Initiative Standards and Guidelines Report” and should be considered during development of the site plan. Listed below are several ideas taken directly from the “Sustainable Sites 1 Initiative Standards and Guidelines Report” . The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) iConserve program also provides for the connection of human well-being to outdoor recreation, conservation, and stewardship. Learn more about iConservePA at http://iconservepa.org/. 1. Provide opportunities for interaction with nature. Provide a diverse landscape to support a broad range of users and activities; including spaces for physical activity, way-finding features, and “cues to care”, which are design devices (such as mowed edges or low fences) that communicate that a naturalistic landscape welcomes users. 2. Design spaces that address children’s needs. Provide pedestrian-only precincts so children and youth can play without concern for traffic. Provide parks and open spaces that serve several residential areas, which give children a sense of place and belonging. Provide interesting landscape places (designed and naturalistic) that enable exploratory play. 3. Provide opportunities for passive experiences with nature. Maintain all possible trees onsite. Optimize water views or provide fountains. Place and configure plantings that achieve other ecosystem services (such as rain gardens for infiltration and stormwater management) to provide visual amenities. 4. Educate site users. Create demonstration gardens, wetlands, and management areas that allow visitors to observe regional biodiversity, and provide interpretive materials. Facilitate wildlife viewing and learning, such as bird boxes. Provide high-quality and carefully prepared interpretive materials or stations that inform about local ecosystems and their functions. Incorporate signs that explain how “no mow zones” are beneficial for humans and wildlife.

5. Provide spaces for social interaction. Create small theme gardens (such as color, texture, butterfly, etc.). Create “community greens” that can serve as outdoor meeting rooms, break or study spaces, and spaces for organizational events and celebrations. Ensure that user spaces are safe and secure using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles (see www.cpted-watch.com for more information). 6. Support on-site food production in healthy environments. Offer gardening plots for site users. 7. Consider local cultures/communities and their special needs. Identify local groups of potential users and provide amenities that address the needs or support the culture of local people. 8. Plant Trees. Trees are beneficial additions to any site. Planting trees should be considered during the planning and developing of all recreational sites. Trees have direct human benefits such as creating effective sound barriers that can muffle urban noise almost as effectively as stone walls; producing oxygen, absorbing and locking away carbon dioxide, and cleaning the air by intercepting airborne particles, reducing heat, and absorbing such pollutants as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Trees shade and cool reducing the need for air conditioning in the summer and break the force of winter winds, lowering heating costs in the winter. Trees fight soil erosion and reduce water runoff and sediment deposition after storms.

References: 1. Sustainable Sites Initiative. Standards and Guidelines: Preliminary Report. November 1, 2007. http://www.sustainablesites.org/report.html

Additional Resources: Penn State University, College of Agricultural Sciences- Cooperative Extension. From the Woods. Community Forests. http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uh173.pdf

Principle #3: Manage Stormwater Naturally Stormwater runoff occurs when excess water from rainfall and snow events flows across paved streets, parking lots, rooftops and construction sties. This runoff can be a significant source of pollution and sedimentation ending up in our streams and other water bodies. Below are a few things to consider on your site to prevent stormwater from becoming an issue. Create and Enhance Riparian Buffers: Riparian buffers are areas of vegetation alongside streams and other bodies of water that mitigate floods, recharge groundwater, prevent erosion and sedimentation of the stream, trap pollutants within plant roots, and improve aquatic and terrestrial species habitat. In these locations native vegetation (ideally a variety of native trees, shrubs, grasses and wildflowers) provides wildlife habitat, bank stabilization, and water 1 quality benefits. To provide the maximum benefits a buffer should be 100 feet or more on each side, 3 although smaller buffers will still provide some benefits. Below is a list of tips for managing buffers: • • • •

Provide some public access to the water, but keep vegetation clearance to a minimum. Avoid work in streams, wetlands or waterways whenever possible. Don't alter a stream bank or shoreline unless you're returning it to a natural state (banks should normally be sloping and covered with vegetation). Remove invasive exotic species to keep them from spreading.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Improve riparian buffers by planting native trees, shrubs and ground covers that are tolerant of wet or seasonally flooded sites. Avoid or minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers near water-bodies.

Protect Wetlands and Critical Recharge Areas: Wetland functions include water quality improvement, floodwater storage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and biological productivity. Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface-water runoff from pavement and buildings. They also recharge groundwater and trap sediment, fertilizers, and pollutants before they enter the water cycle. Construction and other forms of disturbance that serve to degrade the wetland area should be avoided in and near wetlands. A vegetated buffer should be maintained around wetlands wherever possible. Man-made wetlands cannot duplicate all the functions of a natural wetland, so it is 1 critical that natural wetlands be protected whenever possible. Critical recharge areas are typically large contiguous areas of land that allow precipitation and other surface waters to infiltrate through the soil to recharge the groundwater. Without constant recharge, periods of drought could leave streams and wells dry, thus affecting available drinking water and wildlife habitat. Practicing green and sustainable initiatives (such as those outlined in this series of fact sheets) when developing in or near a wetland or critical recharge area can ensure that these features are 1 preserved and remain fully functional. Wellhead Protection is a strategy designed to protect public drinking water supplies by managing the land surface around a well where activities might affect the quality of the water. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 requires each state to develop Wellhead Protection Programs. To learn more about Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wellhead Protection Program visit http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/ag/Whppover.doc. Design Natural Stormwater Management Systems: Natural stormwater management can be more cost-effective than traditional gray infrastructure of pipes and treatment facilities. There are many best management practices for natural stormwater management including: minimizing the areas of impermeable surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots. This can be accomplished through narrower roads, permeable pavements, and rainwater catchment systems on roofs. The remaining runoff can be directed to natural stormwater management systems like native grass swales or rain gardens. Even just planting more native trees near impermeable surfaces can 1 reduce the need for large, expensive stormwater management systems. A technique for green parking utilizes alternative pavers that can range from medium to relatively high effectiveness in meeting stormwater quality goals. Alternative pavers are permeable or semi-permeable surfaces that can replace asphalt and concrete and can be used for driveways, parking lots and walkways. The different types of alternative pavers include gravel, cobbles, wood mulch, brick, grass pavers, turf blocks, natural stone, pervious concrete, and porous asphalt. From a stormwater perspective, this is important because alternative pavers can replace impervious surfaces, creating less 2 stormwater runoff. Stormwater wetlands (a.k.a. constructed wetlands) are structural practices similar to wet ponds that incorporate wetland plants in a shallow pool. As stormwater runoff flows through the wetland, pollutant removal is achieved by settling and biological uptake within the practice. Stormwater wetlands are fundamentally different from natural wetland systems. They are designed specifically for the purpose of treating stormwater runoff, and typically have less biodiversity than natural wetlands both in terms of plant 2 and animal life.

References: 1. DCNR. Creating Sustainable Community Parks. A Guide to Improving Quality of Life by Protecting Natural Resources. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/publications/

2. The Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Region Green Landscaping- Stormwater Control and Managing Natural Areas. http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/garden/stormwater.htm http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/garden/protect.htm

Additional Resources: Dauphin County Conservation District. Stormwater Best Management Practices Tour. http://www.dauphincd.org/swm/bmptour.html EPA. Functions and Values of Wetlands. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/fun_val.pdf\ Final PA Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual - (363-0300-002) http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1437&q=529063&watershedmgmtN av=| Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment & the California Water & Land Use Partnership. Low Impact Development. A Sensible Approach to Land Development and Stormwater Management. http://www.scwrp.org/pdfs/CALWALUP-flier.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The Wellhead Protection Program In Pennsylvania: An Overview. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/ag/Whppover.doc Shermans Creek Conservation Association. Up The Creek Newsletter. Riparian Buffers? What are Riparian Buffers? http://www.shermanscreek.org/2007JanNewsletter.pdf The Stormwater Authority. Best Management Practices. http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/bmp/default.aspx U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Watersheds. “After the Storm”. http://www.epa.gov/weatherchannel/stormwater.html Water Environment Research Foundation. Using Rainwater to Grow Livable Communities. Sustainable Stormwater Best Management Practices. http://www.werf.org/livablecommunities/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet- Porous Pavement. http://www.landarch.uiuc.edu/resources/courses/coursewebsites/LA441Web/Readings2006/EPAPorousPaving.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using Smart Growth Techniques as Stormwater Best Management Practices. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/sg_stormwater_BMP.pdf

Principle #4: Conserve Energy Renewable energy and energy efficiency mean less air pollution (including mercury, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide), less water consumption and less waste. It means less dependence on foreign oil and more self-sufficiency. It means less ground level ozone, less acid rain and less particulate matter in the air. Ultimately, this means improved health. There are many opportunities to include renewable energy technology and energy efficiency techniques in site design. Please consider these different alternative

energy sources and energy efficiency techniques to power your facilities as you move forward with your project planning and site design. Solar: Solar technologies use the sun's energy to provide heat, light, hot water, electricity, and even cooling, for many different types of facilities. Solar power is probably the cleanest, most viable form of renewable energy available and it can be used in several forms to help power your facility. Many gardens use solar 2 lights or solar garden water features. A variety of technologies have been developed to harness solar energy. In Pennsylvania, these technologies include: Photovoltaic systems (produces electricity), solar 6 hot water heating, and passive solar heating and daylighting. Wind: Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can generate electricity. Wind energy is 1, 3 Pennsylvania has good wind one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation in the world. resources in portions of the state. Municipalities and non-profit organizations can use small wind turbines 7 for on-site energy generation. Geothermal Heat Pump: The 10 feet of earth directly beneath the surface maintains a nearly constant temperature between 50째 and 60째F (10째-16째C). Like a cave, this ground temperature is warmer than the air above it in the winter and cooler than the air in the summer. Pennsylvania has low to moderate temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps. Geothermal heat pumps take advantage of 1 this resource to heat and cool buildings. Biomass and Biofuels: Biomass and biofuels provide an excellent opportunity to heat and power buildings. Heating options may include the installation of a wood chip heating system, wood pellet furnace or boiler systems, corn furnace, or simply using a biodiesel blended heating oil commonly referred to as a bio-heat product. Biofuels can be used to power small-scale workshop machinery and electricity generators as well as 1 vehicles. Fuel Cells: Fuel Cells are an option that local governments can consider when exploring alternative energy choices and distributed energy technologies. A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel into electricity with heat and water as the major by products. There are several types of fuel cells and 1 different fuels used for electricity generation. Using Plants to Reduce Heating and Cooling Needs: Plants can significantly reduce a building's energy needs since it's cooler in the shade of trees and warmer behind plants that block the winter winds. The general rule is to plant deciduous trees (those that lose their leaves in winter) on the south and west sides of a building where the sun's rays are most direct and intense. These trees will provide shade during summer but permit the winter sun to provide warmth. Where there isn't room for trees, shrubs and vines can provide similar benefits. Extensive use of trees to shade buildings, streets, driveways and other large paved surfaces can even cool entire communities. To reduce winter heating costs, plant evergreen trees and shrubs as windbreaks. Most cold winds come from the north or west (though this can vary locally), so on those sides of the building plant a dense row of evergreens that maintain branches low to the ground. Where new construction is planned, one can even consider "greenroofing" where roofs are specially designed to accommodate plants. Such roofs provide insulating value that further reduces heating and cooling needs and can be very long-lasting 4, 5 when properly maintained.

References: 1. Department of Environmental Protection. Alternative Energy. http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1379&q=485551

2. American Solar Energy Society. Go Solar: How to get started with solar energy. http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=162&Itemid=7 3. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. State Energy Alternatives. Alternative Energy Resources in Pennsylvania. http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_pa.cfm http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/astate_template.asp?stateab=p a 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Region Green Landscaping. Using Plants to Reduce Heating and Cooling Needs http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/garden/heat.htm 5. American Evergreen Foundation. Conservation Through Participation. Landscaping for Energy Efficiency. http://www.usagreen.org/landscaping.html 6. West Penn Power Sustainable Energy Fund, Inc. Solar. http://www.wppsef.org/solar.html 7. Pennsylvania Wind Working Group. http://www.pawindenergynow.org/

Additional Resources: Energy Star. Green Buildings. http://www.energystar.gov/ http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=green_buildings.green_buildings_index Governor’s Green Government Council. Green Electricity in Pennsylvania. http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a=514&q=156817 Penn State University EMS Energy Institute. Biomass/ Biofuels. http://www.energy.psu.edu/sp/biomass.html Pennsylvania Biomass Working Group. Developing Renewable Energy. http://www.pabiomass.org/PABioenergy_BrochureOPT.pdf West Penn Power Sustainable Energy Fund, Inc. Wind. http://www.wppsef.org/wind.html

Principle #5: Integrate Green Design and Construction The ideal “green” project preserves and restores habitat that is vital for sustaining life and becomes a net producer and exporter of resources, materials, energy and water rather than being a net consumer. A green building is one whose construction and lifetime of operation assure the healthiest possible environment while representing the most efficient and least disruptive use of land, water, energy and resources. The optimum design solution is one that effectively emulates all of the natural systems and 1 conditions of the pre-developed site – after development is complete. Green Design can Save Money: While many green materials and technologies do cost more, it has been demonstrated that many green strategies and technologies actually cost the same and some even cost less than traditional “not-sogreen” technologies. By blending the right mix of green technologies that cost less with green technologies that cost the same or slightly more, it is possible to have a very green building project that costs the same as a conventional one. Often the key to a cost effective green building and site design

lies within the interrelationships and associated cost and performance trade-offs that exist between different building systems. For example, the use of high performance windows and window frames increases the initial building costs, however the resulting reduction in the size and cost of the buildings heating and cooling system more than offsets the added cost of the better glazing system. The result is a building that has a comparable or perhaps even a lower first cost, a higher comfort level, lower energy 1 use, and lower energy bills and operating cost for the life of the building. Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™: A voluntary, consensus-based standard to support and certify successful green building design, construction and operations. LEED is transforming the marketplace by providing a nationally recognized 2 certification system to promote integrated, whole-building design practices in the building industry. For a project to become LEED certified it is required that the project follows energy efficiency, environmentally conscious methods, as defined by the LEED Green Building Rating System, Version 2.1, November 2002, in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Sustainable Sites (SS) Water Efficiency (WE) Energy & Atmospheric (EA) Materials & Resources (MR) Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ)

References: 1. Governor’s Green Government Council. Green Buildings. http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a=515&q=156866 2. United States Green Building Council- LEED. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

Additional Resources: Governor’s Green Government Council. Guidelines for Creating High Performance Green Buildings. http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a=515&q=156978 United States Green Building Council. http://www.usgbc.org/

129

Appendix J: Tennis Feasibility S tudy

131

Appendix K: Cos t Analysis Spreadsheets

Everything - Issue Bonds

Draw Year 1 Draw Year 2 Draw Year 3 Draw Year 4 Draw Year 5 Draw Year 6

$ $ $ $ $ $

Estimated Interest Rate Estimated Inflation Rate Bond Terms (in years)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Debt Service Draw 1 $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ (338,489) $ $ $ -

Draw 4,500,000 5,900,000 5,800,000 -

Inflation Adjusted Draw $ 4,500,000 $ 5,723,000 $ 5,457,220 $ $ $ -

Cumulative Inflation Adjusted Draw 4,500,000 10,223,000 15,680,220 15,680,220 15,680,220 15,680,220

Debt Service Draw 3

Debt Service Draw 4

4.25% 3.00% 20.00

Debt Service Draw 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

(443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) (443,797) -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

(436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) (436,275) -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Debt Service Draw 5

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Debt Service Draw 6

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Annual Debt Service (338,489) (782,286) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (1,218,561) (880,072) (436,275) -

Sports Fields Only - Issue Bonds

Draw Year 1 Draw Year 2 Draw Year 3 Draw Year 4 Draw Year 5 Draw Year 6

$ $ $ $ $ $

Estimated Interest Rate Estimated Inflation Rate Bond Terms (in years)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Debt Service Draw 1 $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ (285,835) $ $ $ -

Draw 3,800,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 -

Inflation Adjusted Draw $ 3,800,000 $ 4,074,000 $ 3,951,780 $ $ $ -

Cumulative Inflation Adjusted Draw 3,800,000 7,874,000 11,825,780 11,825,780 11,825,780 11,825,780

Debt Service Draw 3

Debt Service Draw 4

4.25% 3.00% 20.00

Debt Service Draw 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

(315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) (315,923) -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Debt Service Draw 5

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Debt Service Draw 6

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Annual Debt Service (285,835) (601,759) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (917,682) (631,847) (315,923) -

Everything - Pay As You Go

Total Project Cost in Today's Dollars Estimated Inflation Rate Estimated Annual Municipal Contributions Annual Increase in Annual Municipal Contributions

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Annual Municipal Contributions $ 525,000 $ 525,000 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700 $ 367,700

Inflation Adjusted Annual Contributions $ 525,000 $ 509,250 $ 337,145 $ 337,357 $ 327,217 $ 318,617 $ 310,349 $ 302,527 $ 295,094 $ 288,025 $ 281,293 $ 274,873 $ 268,746 $ 262,889 $ 257,287 $ 251,921 $ 246,778 $ 241,843 $ 237,105 $ 232,550 $ 228,170 $ 223,953 $ 219,891 $ 215,975 $ 212,198 $ 208,552 $ 205,030 $ 201,626 $ 198,334 $ 195,149 $ 192,066 $ 189,079 $ 186,184 $ 183,378 $ 180,655 $ 178,012 $ 175,447

Cumulative Value of Dollars Spent in Today's Dollars $ 525,000 $ 1,034,250 $ 1,371,395 $ 1,708,752 $ 2,035,969 $ 2,354,587 $ 2,664,935 $ 2,967,462 $ 3,262,556 $ 3,550,580 $ 3,831,873 $ 4,106,746 $ 4,375,492 $ 4,638,381 $ 4,895,668 $ 5,147,589 $ 5,394,367 $ 5,636,210 $ 5,873,315 $ 6,105,865 $ 6,334,035 $ 6,557,988 $ 6,777,879 $ 6,993,854 $ 7,206,052 $ 7,414,604 $ 7,619,633 $ 7,821,259 $ 8,019,593 $ 8,214,743 $ 8,406,808 $ 8,595,887 $ 8,782,071 $ 8,965,449 $ 9,146,104 $ 9,324,116 $ 9,499,563

$ $

16,500,000 3.00% 367,700 0.00%

% of Project Completed 3.18% 6.27% 8.31% 10.36% 12.34% 14.27% 16.15% 17.98% 19.77% 21.52% 23.22% 24.89% 26.52% 28.11% 29.67% 31.20% 32.69% 34.16% 35.60% 37.01% 38.39% 39.75% 41.08% 42.39% 43.67% 44.94% 46.18% 47.40% 48.60% 49.79% 50.95% 52.10% 53.22% 54.34% 55.43% 56.51% 57.57%

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

172,954 170,532 168,177 165,887 163,659 161,490 159,378 157,321 155,317 153,363 151,458 149,600 147,788 146,019 144,292 142,605 140,958 139,348 137,775 136,238 134,734 133,263 131,824 130,416 129,038 127,689 126,368 125,074 123,806 122,564 121,347 120,153 118,984 117,834 116,713 115,599 114,538 113,425 112,493 111,217 110,790 108,452 110,669 102,093 119,613 73,452 184,803 (98,005) 617,612 (1,225,739) 3,566,878 -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

9,672,517 9,843,049 10,011,227 10,177,114 10,340,773 10,502,263 10,661,641 10,818,962 10,974,278 11,127,641 11,279,099 11,428,700 11,576,487 11,722,506 11,866,797 12,009,403 12,150,360 12,289,709 12,427,484 12,563,722 12,698,455 12,831,718 12,963,543 13,093,959 13,222,997 13,350,686 13,477,054 13,602,128 13,725,934 13,848,498 13,969,845 14,089,997 14,208,981 14,326,815 14,443,529 14,559,128 14,673,666 14,787,091 14,899,584 15,010,800 15,121,590 15,230,042 15,340,711 15,442,805 15,562,418 15,635,870 15,820,674 15,722,669 16,340,281 15,114,542 18,681,420 18,681,420

58.62% 59.65% 60.67% 61.68% 62.67% 63.65% 64.62% 65.57% 66.51% 67.44% 68.36% 69.26% 70.16% 71.05% 71.92% 72.78% 73.64% 74.48% 75.32% 76.14% 76.96% 77.77% 78.57% 79.36% 80.14% 80.91% 81.68% 82.44% 83.19% 83.93% 84.67% 85.39% 86.12% 86.83% 87.54% 88.24% 88.93% 89.62% 90.30% 90.97% 91.65% 92.30% 92.97% 93.59% 94.32% 94.76% 95.88% 95.29% 99.03% 91.60% 113.22% 113.22%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420

113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420 18,681,420

113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22% 113.22%

Sports Fields Only - Pay As You Go

Total Project Cost in Today's Dollars Estimated Inflation Rate Estimated Annual Municipal Contributions Annual Increase in Annual Municipal Contributions

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

$ $

11,500,000 3.00% 367,700 0.00%

% of Project Completed 4.57% 8.99% 11.93% 14.86% 17.70% 20.47% 23.17% 25.80% 28.37% 30.87% 33.32% 35.71% 38.05% 40.33% 42.57% 44.76% 46.91% 49.01% 51.07% 53.09% 55.08% 57.03% 58.94% 60.82% 62.66% 64.47% 66.26% 68.01% 69.74% 71.43% 73.10% 74.75% 76.37% 77.96% 79.53% 81.08% 82.60%

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 367,700 -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

172,954 170,532 168,177 165,887 163,659 161,490 159,378 157,321 155,317 153,363 151,458 149,600 147,788 -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

9,672,517 9,843,049 10,011,227 10,177,114 10,340,773 10,502,263 10,661,641 10,818,962 10,974,278 11,127,641 11,279,099 11,428,700 11,576,487 11,576,487

84.11% 85.59% 87.05% 88.50% 89.92% 91.32% 92.71% 94.08% 95.43% 96.76% 98.08% 99.38% 100.67% 100.67%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487 11,576,487

100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67% 100.67%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Everything - Issue Bonds (Scenario 1, Payment Option 1) Assuming interest rate of 4.25%, Inflation rate of 3%, and bond terms of 20 years: - Annual debt service per year would be: Year 1 338,000 increase/year Year 2 782,000 Year 3-20 State College Boro 224,475 College Twp Year 3 1,219,000 174,226 Ferguson Twp Year 4 1,219,000 215,721 Harris Twp Year 5 1,219,000 69,025 Patton Twp Year 6 1,219,000 167,398 Years 7-20 1,219,000 850,845 Year 21 880,000 Year 22 436,000 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 -

Sports Fields Only - Issue Bonds (Scenario 2, Payment Option 1) Assuming interest rate of 4.25%, Inflation rate of 3%, and bond terms of 20 years: - Annual debt service per year would be: Year 1 286,000 Year 2 602,000 increase/year Year 3 918,000 Year 3-20 State College Boro 145,097 Year 4 918,000 112,617 College Twp Year 5 918,000 139,438 Ferguson Twp Year 6 918,000 44,616 Harris Twp Years 7-20 918,000 108,203 Patton Twp Year 21 632,000 549,971 Year 22 316,000 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 -

Everything - Pay As You Go (Scenario 1, Payment Option 2) Assuming inflation rate of 3% and continued with same contribution of $367,700: - Number of years to completion 88 ** this analysis assumes annual municipal contributions remain the same throughout the scenario while tax revenues should theoretically increase with inflation

Sports Fields Only - Pay As You Go (Scenario 2, Payment Option 2) Assuming inflation rate of 3% and the same municipal contributions of $367,700/year: - Number of years to completion 50 ** this analysis assumes annual municipal contributions remain the same throughout the scenario while tax revenues should theoretically increase with inflation

133

Appendix L: Park Development Challenge Memo