feasibility study report

Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The contributions of the following groups and individuals were vital to the successful development of Elizabeth Township’s Recreation Complex Feasibility Study. They are commended for their interest in the project and the input they provided.

Township Supervisors/Staff

Mrs. Joanne Beckowitz Mr. Robert Keefer

Feasibility Study Steering Committee

Mr. Timothy Guffey Ms. Judy Marshall Mr. Drew Mueller

Mr. John Paylo Mr. Dennis Pohoclich

Mrs. Robin Poirer

Key-Person Interviews

Emily Albeck Emil Burek

Kathy Dainty Dave Firda

Walter Gibbons Dennis Kampas

Steve Meir Kara Miles

Harry Morrison Eric Pakala Carl Rogers

Keith Shaffer Terrie Stefanko Mark Verosky

In addition, we would like to thank:

Mr. Andrew Baechle, Director Allegheny County Parks Department

Mr. Mike Piaskowski, Grants Project Management Division

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Ms. Kathy Frankel, Recreation and Parks Supervisor Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

This project was financed in part by a grant from the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund, under the administration of the Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.

JTC-jrs:\A04355\Jan-07 PBS&J

Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1

II. PROJECT GOALS............................................................................................................2

Feasibility for a Recreation Complex.............................................................................. 2

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.............................................................................................3

Steering Committee .......................................................................................................... 3

Public Surveys and Public Involvement ......................................................................... 3

IV. SITE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................15

Alternative Site Evaluation Results............................................................................... 16

Alternative Analysis........................................................................................................ 19

V. LEGAL FEASIBILITY...................................................................................................20

VI. USAGE FEASIBILITY...................................................................................................21

Population Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21

Developing a User Profile............................................................................................... 26

National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards ................................. 26

Determining Park Facility Needs and Program Demand Analysis............................ 29

Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines .................................. 29

Site Topography and Roadway Impact Analysis......................................................... 32

VII. VISION FOR THE FUTURE.........................................................................................33

VIII. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................40

Proposed Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Budget ..................................... 40


Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Elizabeth Township Survey Return Results Table 2 – Percent of Respondents’ Disposition for Types of Recreation Funding Table 3 – Site Location Analysis Table 4 – Inventory of Recreation Facilities within Elizabeth Township Table 5 – Elizabeth Township Population Statistics Table 6 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000) Table 7 – Percentages of Ethnic Groups within Elizabeth Township Table 8 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000) Table 9 – School Enrollment in Elizabeth Township (2000) Table 10 – Educational Attainment in Elizabeth Township (2000) Table 11 – Household and Family Income in Elizabeth Township (1999) Table 12 – Family and Household Income (2000) Table 13 – Marital Status/Grandparent Care in Elizabeth Township (2000) Table 14 – Recreation Facilities: Existing versus Need Table 15 – Fiore Property III Quantity Takeoff Table 16A – Fiore Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 16B – Fiore Property: Roadway and Parking Access Cost Estimate Table 17 – Church Property III Quantity Takeoff Table 18 – Church Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 19 – Church Property/Fiore Property: Total Costs Table 20 – Estimated Ten Year Budget for Park O&M and Revenues

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Age Distribution of Survey Households Figure 2 – Locations of Survey Respondents Figure 3 – Preferred Recreation Facilities Figure 4 – Adult’s Favorite Activities (Top 10) Figure 5 – Youth’s Favorite Activities (Top 10) Figure 6 – Additional Space Needed in Twp. for Recreation/Nature/Sports Fields Figure 7 – Preferred Type of Recreational Facility Figure 8 – Park Usage – Group Size Figure 9 – Frequency of Use Figure 10 – Preferred Trail Use Figure 11 – Preferred Trail Amenities Figure 12 – Areas of Concern Figure 13 – Method for Funding Recreation Center Figure 14 – Recreation Facility Comparison in Elizabeth Twp. to National Standards

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

– – – –

Park Survey Plan Sheets for Alternatives Location Map of Recreation Facilities Fiore/Church Property Alternatives


Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page 1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The need to undertake a feasibility study to develop an indoor/outdoor recreation facility in Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania, was identified in the 2005 draft of the Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan. Elizabeth Township, via the aid of a Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Grant, hired PBS&J to perform a feasibility study within the Township. The study was initially scoped to take place in Round Hill Park, but was expanded to the entire Township due to public concerns. The feasibility study was conducted from March 2006 to January 2007. It included the formation of a steering committee, field views, public surveys, public meetings, engineering practices and proposed recreation facility designs, and the generation of a feasibility study report. The feasibility study report summarizes the project goals, public survey results, site analyses, legal feasibility of indicated sites, and the usage feasibility of a newly constructed recreation facility within the community in comparison to demographic needs and the number and type of current recreational facilities available to Township residents. The report also includes a vision for the future of the recreation complex in the Township, as well as financial considerations that Township officials must take into account, when considering implementing the complex. A proposed project cost and ten (10) year operation and maintenance budget were developed. The goal of the feasibility study was to determine the need, legal feasibility, and economic feasibility of developing a recreation center. The study uncovered that residents were interested in generating more space within the Township for recreation needs. Most residents preferred that these spaces remain natural and undeveloped. There was documented support for an organized sports tournament complex. A majority of residents agreed that a mixed-recreation complex with multiple recreational amenities was desired. The need was emphasized on a centralized location for residents to access within the Township. Township residents also expressed concern in regards to additional taxes. The feasibility study included multiple alternative locations and scenarios for a recreation complex. After considerable research and cost/benefit analysis, it was determined that the Fiore Property and the Church Property were the most feasible options to house a recreation complex. The project costs were approximately $2.3 million and could be financially feasible for the Township over a ten-year period, if the Township decides to go forward with the project. Additional grants and sources of funding should be sought to alleviate the potential development costs of the recreational complex on the Township.



II. PROJECT GOALS Feasibility for a Recreation Complex The Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan identified a need to study the feasibility to develop an indoor/outdoor recreational facility in Elizabeth Township. The initial goal of the project was to identify an area in Round Hill Park. Round Hill Park is a park and demonstration farm owned and operated by the Allegheny County Department of Parks and Recreation. However, areas outside of Round Hill Park were also analyzed. The capacity and feasibility of a recreation facility was examined at eight (8) different locations to determine an optimal site. A “No-Build” alternative was also included within the project study. The purpose of this study was to determine the need and feasibility to develop a recreation complex in Elizabeth Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The capacity of the Township was studied via community support, market characteristics, physical/structural requirements, and the Township’s financial capability to acquire, develop, and sustain an indoor/outdoor recreational facility. The goal was to determine the need, legal feasibility, and economic feasibility of developing a recreation center. To determine the feasibility, a planning level intensity estimate was developed for each site.



III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public involvement campaign involved a three (3) tier approach: public surveys, public meetings, and the key-person interviews. In addition to a project steering committee, public surveys were sent to each Township household. The public involvement process also included three (3) public meetings and key-person interviews. Steering Committee The steering committee met monthly to discuss issues as they arose and directed the progress of the project. Meeting minutes were recorded by PBS&J and provided for the steering committee members each month. Ten (10) regular steering committee meetings were conducted from March 2006 through December 2006. Public Surveys and Public Involvement Three (3) public meetings were conducted throughout the duration of the study. The first was a “kick-off” meeting to introduce the purpose and need for the project to the community. The second public meeting presented the survey results. The third and final public meeting was conducted to receive public input on the several alternative sites identified as potential recreation complex sites.

This photo was taken during a public meeting held on July 25, 2006 at the Elizabeth Township municipal building. Joel Shodi, P.E. (PBS&J) served as a technical expert on the project and answered questions about the feasibility study for concerned citizens.



In the spring of 2006, 4,763 Public Opinion Surveys were mailed to each Elizabeth Township residence; these surveys were compiled from a database of addresses for the entire community of Elizabeth Township. The survey was also publicized and posted on the Elizabeth Township webpage. The survey asked several questions related to the existing community recreation facilities; other questions were designed to provide input pertinent to the preparation of the Feasibility Study of a Recreation Complex in Elizabeth Township. The results of the survey were made available at public meetings and were also posted online along with public meeting announcements and other project milestones. Responses were sent to the Township municipal building on Rock Run Road. The total number of surveys returned was 1,576 (or 35 percent). This very good return rate demonstrates genuine community-wide interest in the future parks and recreation efforts in the Township.

Table 1 – Elizabeth Township Survey Return Results

47632661101466

15764497

35.0%% RESPONSE OF ELIZABETH TOWNSHIP

SURVEY RETURNS

SURVEYS SENT AND DELIVEREDGRAND TOTAL RECEIVED

TOTAL SURVEYS RETURNED VIA REGULAR MAILTOTAL SURVEYS RETURNED THROUGH WEBSITE

TOTAL SURVEYS SENT VIA REGULAR MAILTOTAL RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE

Survey Results: Demographics The first questions of the survey were geared toward determining household demographics. Elizabeth Township residents were questioned about the street locations of their residences, in addition to the size and age distribution of their households. (A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix A.) The age distribution of the survey responses is quite similar to the demographic profile of the Township presented in Table 2 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000). The youth population (19 and under) comprised 25 percent of the surveys and about 23 percent of the population in the 2000 census. The middle age groups (20-59 years) made up about 50 percent of the surveys and 51.6 percent of the 2000 population. Seniors (60 years and older) totaled approximately 25 percent of both the 2000 population and the recent survey responses. These statistics reveal both a very good survey return and a representative sample of the Township residents.



Figure 1 – Age Distribution of Survey Households 4%

8%

6%

7%

18%

32%

25%4 years and under

5-10 years old

11-14 years old

15-19 years old

20-39 years old

40-59 years old

60 and older

Township residents were asked to identify their street of residence to determine any trends in the survey participation of households. The twelve (12) most frequently selected street locations are illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Locations of Survey Respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SCENERY DR LINCOLNHALL RD

KAREN DR DUNCANSTATION RD

OBERDICKDR

GREENOCKBUENA VISTA

ST

BROADLAWNDR

HIGHLANDDR

HIGH ST SIMPSONHOWELL RD

OLD HILLS RD RIDGE RD



According to the Township map, the most commonly indicated streets in the survey are relatively evenly distributed throughout the Township. Scenery Drive had the largest number of responses due to its proximity to the proposed improvements to Round Hill Park near SR 0048 and length of the roadway and single-family residences along the route. Survey Results: Recreation Interests Based on the survey results, charts and tables were developed to graphically represent the responses to the community recreation interest survey. Elizabeth Township residents were provided with the opportunity to indicate the types of recreation they enjoy and what they foresee as the future needs of recreation facilities within the Township.

Figure 3 – Preferred Recreation Facilities

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Vot

es

Swimming

Nature

Walk

Walk

ing/X-C

ountry

Ski T

rail

Fitness

Stati

ons

Recrea

tion C

enter

Playgr

ound

Pavilio

ns

Bicycli

ng

Fishing

Ball Fiel

ds

Picnic

Shelt

er

Amphith

eater

Picnic

Area

B-ball/St

reet H

ockey

Tennis C

ourts

Ice Sk

ating

Soccer

Fields

Volley

ball

Skateb

oard

Equestr

ian

Challen

ge C

ourse

The five (5) recreation facilities most preferred by Elizabeth Township residents are: a swimming pool, nature walks, a walking/cross country ski trail, fitness stations, and a recreation center. The most preferred facilities focus on activities that are undertaken via community recreation, with large groups of people being able to enjoy the activities together. Certain areas of organized sports were indicated, as well, but to a lesser degree. Residents agreed these facilities would be the most useful in a recreation center complex.



Figure 4 – Adult’s Favorite Activities (Top 10)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Res

pons

es

Walk Bike Fish Golf Swim Exercise GardeningCamp/BeOutdoors

OutdoorShows

Hunt Walk/BiketheYRT

Adult's Favorite Activities (Top 10)

Figure 5 – Youth’s Favorite Activities (Top 10)

10

20

30

40

50

60

Res

pons

es

Swim Baseball/Softball/T-Ball

B-ball Soccer Bike Playground Fish Exercise Skate(board) Football

Youth's Favorite Activities (Top 10)

To determine the most popular forms of recreation within the community, both adults and children were asked to indicate their favorite recreational activities. The responses differed greatly between the two demographic groups. Adults seemed to favor activities that can be performed individually, or within small groups. Adult responses were also geared more toward fitness and leisure, rather than team sport interaction. Walking is, by far, the most favored activity within the adult community. Biking fishing, golfing, and swimming are also very popular activities amongst the adult population. Organized sports are much more popular among the community youth than adults. Swimming, baseball and/or softball, and basketball were the three (3) activities most frequently selected by the Elizabeth Township youth. The types of activities enjoyed by community members, especially adults reflect the most preferred facilities in Figure 3.



Survey recipients were questioned about their disposition for the allotment of additional space in the Township to be utilized for park and recreation, sports fields, or natural areas with minimal development. Responses favored more areas for park and recreation and natural areas. However, no broad consensus was reached on constructing more sports fields in Elizabeth Township. Figure 6 – Natural Areas/Sports Fields/Park & Recreation Space: Additional Space

Needed in Township

33%

43%

16%

8%

22%

31%

27%

20%

44%

37%

8%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Natural Areas Sports Fields Park & Rec Space

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

Many Elizabeth Township residents place high importance for the allotment of space for recreational areas within the community. The Township is relatively divided on whether new sports fields are needed; 53 percent of respondents agreed, while 47 percent disagreed. Organized sports did not spark as much of an interest in the adult population in comparison to the youth population in Elizabeth Township. Though there is relatively split agreement on whether additional space is required in the Township for sports fields, many residents agree that more space for park and recreation (81 percent agree), as well as areas of minimal development (76 percent agree), are needed within the community. Elizabeth Township residents were also questioned about what type of recreation complex that they would most prefer in the community. Respondents could choose between a mixed-use complex, athletic fields only, nature areas only, or an indoor/outdoor court that could be used for tennis and basketball.



Figure 7 – Preferred Type of Recreational Facility

68%3%

20%

9%

Mixed Use Complex Area Athletic Fields Only Nature Areas Only Indoor/Outdoor Court (tennis, basketball)

The majority of respondents (68 percent) prefer that a mixed-use complex be implemented into the Township. The mixed-use complex could consist of trails, athletic fields, a recreation building, a new toddler playground, nature walks, and other amenities to be addressed by the Township. Some residents (20 percent) prefer that nature areas should be emphasized in the Township, most likely for the use of passive recreation. A small number of residents indicated that they wish to have athletic fields only or an indoor/outdoor court be built for the community.

Figure 8 – Park Usage-Group Size

20%

80%

Small (6 or Less) Large (Greater than 6)

Group sizes, type of recreation preferences, and frequency of recreation use are good indicators of both the extent and the types of recreation interest within a community. Elizabeth Township residents indicated how often they utilized the community parks and if their visits tended to be in large or small groups. Most residents stated that they visit the parks in small groups.



Figure 9 – Frequency of Use

6%

21%

31%

18%

22%2%

Every Day 3-5 Times per Week

1-2 Times per Week Once per Week (Summer)

Infrequently Only for Team Sports

The planned frequency of use was quite varied. One third of the respondents stated that they would use the proposed recreation facility one to two times per week. Few plan to use it everyday, and only a small fraction intend to use the facility for sports teams only. Small groups of people utilizing the proposed recreation facility once or twice a week should be expected in the Township. However, many respondents commented that group size and frequency of use were highly dependent upon what types of amenities would be offered at the facility.

Figure 10 – Preferred Trail Use

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

# of

Vot

es

Motorized Bicycles Animals

Yes No

Trails, such as nature walks and walking and cross country ski trails, were indicated as highly preferred facilities within the Township (see Figure 3). The next two figures (Figure 10 and Figure 11) illustrate the types of preferred trail activities and amenities that Elizabeth Township residents wish to see develop on the future trails of the area.



Figure 11 – Preferred Trail Amenities

0100200300400500600700800900

# of

Vot

es

Mile Markers Exercise Stations Equestrian

Yes

The majority of the respondents (90 percent) did not favor motorized vehicle use on trails. There was much more support for bicycles and animals. A physical fitness trail with exercise stations and distance markers was also favored. Survey respondents were also asked to add their comments or concerns to the survey. The top ten (10) concerns or comments covered the following subject areas are shown on Figure 12.

Figure 12 – Areas of Concern

No New Taxes; 188

No Improvements/Use Funds

Elsewhere; 69

Maintain Existing Facilities/Already Have

the Facility; 68

Any Improvement Welcome; 65

Safety/Security/Vandalism; 61

Need Activities for Children; 45

No New Township Building; 42

Preserve Nature/Maintain Country

Setting; 39

Pool Needed; 31

Concern about Site Location; 31

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Vot

es



“No new taxes” is the primary concern of the Elizabeth Township residents. This is a typical response in most recreation surveys, and is a legitimate one. Most families are concerned with an increase in taxes. The purpose of this study is to determine which site alternative (including the “No-build” alternative) will be the most feasible and practical for Elizabeth Township residents. Funding is obviously a consideration. Several additional financial options will need to be examined by the Township, such as grants, bonds, and donations. These types of funding sources can relieve the tax burden placed on residents due to recreational activities. The second concern came from those who were not in agreement with the necessity of park improvements. They stated no park improvements should occur and funds should be used elsewhere. These concerns were often addressed by the older age group respondents. This is understandable if they feel that they would not use the park. It is also understandable if they are on a fixed income. They want their tax dollars paying for services other than recreation. Planned facilities will be ADA compatible. A Township-owned building that houses activities for senior citizens may be attractive to this growing age group. A review of the demographics displays an increasing number of residents in the 60 and over age cohort. This trend is typical of communities and points to the need to have programs for seniors. Having picnics, horseshoes, and other games or activities at the park at no cost could change the attitude of these respondents that is contrary to the majority of Township residents. A trail at grade level that is easy to walk and is visible to the public can attract the 60 and over age group. Seniors participating in a gardening club can help plant and beautify the park. Giving them a reason to come to the park and participate in activities may change their attitude about recreation. Maintaining existing facilities was the third concern. The “No-build” alternative examines the modification of existing facilities to meet recreation needs for all age groups. “Any improvements to the park are welcome!” was the comment that ranked fourth in the survey. The fifth concern was issues regarding safety, security, and vandalism. To mitigate for instances of vandalism, a “vandal resistant” design is evaluated at each site. Site access for emergency vehicles and site visibility were considered in the designs. A need for children’s activities was the sixth concern. Current recreation facilities and programs for all age groups is examined. Consideration is also placed on community growth and demographics. This process identifies current and future needs for all age groups. “No new Township building” was the seventh concern. No new administrative Township building is being considered. A building to house recreation programs, concessions, and maintenance equipment is part of the alternatives analysis. The eighth concern was geared toward the preservation of nature and maintaining the country atmosphere of the Township. The need for natural areas to meet passive recreation needs become an integral part of the alternatives analysis.



The comment that a pool is needed in the Township ranked as the ninth concern. Existing facilities are identified and examined in the area. Elizabeth Township is compared to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) for municipalities of similar size and demographics. The preliminary site location in Round Hill Park adjacent to Scenery Drive was indicated as the tenth concern. As a result of the public survey and public meetings held, eight (8) site alternatives are being studied.



Survey Results: Funding Options Township residents were asked to indicate the preferable types of funding that would be accessed for the construction, administration, programming and maintenance for the addition of any recreational facilities that would be implemented into the area. Funding was organized into the following categories: taxes, fees, grants, donations, endowments/corporate donations, and municipal bonds. Table 2 and Figure 13 serve as illustrations to the response from residents on their level of agreement with these various sources of funding.

Table 2 – Percentage of Respondents’ Disposition for Recreation Funding Types

Method of Funding Strongly Agree Agree

Subtotal (Agree &

Strongly Agree) Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Subtotal (Disagree &

Strongly Disagree Taxes 2.3% 10.0% 12.3% 22.7% 65.0% 87.7% Fees 20.7% 36.4% 56.4% 21.2% 21.8% 43.0% Grants 68.3% 24.7% 93.0% 1.5% 5.5% 7.0% Donations 62.3% 32.7% 95.0% 1.4% 3.7% 5.1% Endowments/ Donations 61.7% 32.3% 94.0% 1.8% 4.2% 6.0% Municipal Bonds 29.3% 33.1% 62.4% 14.6% 23.0% 37.6%

Figure 13 – Method for Funding Recreation Center

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Res

pons

es

Taxes Fees &Memberships

Grants Donations Endowments/Donations

MunicipalBonds (CapitalImprovements)

Funding Type

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Methods for funding the facility were geared toward grants, donations, and endowments, with over 90 percent of respondents being in favor of utilizing these funding resources. Municipal bonds, fees and memberships were favored by over half of the respondents. Taxes were the least favored with almost 90 percent of respondents being in disagreement with their use (65 percent strongly disagreed). Even though the majority of respondents favored municipal bonds, 25 percent strongly disagreed with their use.



IV. SITE ANALYSIS Round Hill Park was originally identified in the Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan (2002) as being the best potential location for a recreation complex that would fulfill the recreation needs of Elizabeth Township. The original scope of work involved identifying a site within Round Hill Park at selected locations previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan. However, as a result of the community involvement, several other potential sites were indicated for further study. The following eight (8) sites were identified, in addition to a “no-build” alternative, in the public survey and in verbal and written reply during the public project kick-off meeting.

• Howell Property, located off Lincoln Road which is approximately ninety (90) acres. This property is presently owned by Elizabeth Township and is designated as park, recreation and open space property. The Softball Association was looking at a portion of it for a softball field.

• Fiore Property, privately owned. A portion of the property is currently under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) hazardous waste cleanup.

• Seven Springs, privately owned and is comprised of approximately 20 acres. At the time

of the study, the property was posted for sale.

• Boston Riverfront, riverfront recreation area and regional trail head.

• Round Hill Park, at the current soccer field site.

• Round Hill Park, at the former Nike missile site.

• Round Hill Park, in the northern section near SR 0048 and Scenic Drive.

• Church Property, centrally located in the community behind the municipal building. This sight has recently become available due to the desire of the owner of Higher Grounds Gospel Church to disband and sell the property.

• No-Build Alternative, modification of existing facilities to better meet the recreation

needs of the community; does not include constructing new, additional facilities. Each site/alternative was visited, photographed, mapped, and evaluated for compatibility to meet the Township need for a recreation center. A second public meeting was conducted to present the survey results and alternative sites chosen for additional study.



Alternative Site Evaluation Results Based on map review, site visits, and public comments received during the second public meeting, the following conclusions were made regarding each of the alternatives:

• Howell Site This 90 acre site is located along Lincoln Road and is currently owned by the Township. The Howell Property has considerable environmental constraints towards its development (i.e., wetlands, perennial streams, and drainage issues). Also, its acreage and topography are not conducive to the building of athletic fields. This location is better suited to be left as wooded, open space and the Township should look into developing nature trails and other forms of passive recreation on the site as opposed to active recreation facilities. Though there are many walking trails in the area, additional trails were sited as a need in the public survey. Development of a master plan is necessary to determine the future development of this 90 acre area. (See Appendix B, Figure 2B for a property site location map.)

• Fiore Site

The Fiore Property has much potential. This site offers several vistas of the river valley, contains an existing road, and has a fairly even terrain. Consequently, the cut and fill requirements associated with parking lot and ball field development would be less intensive than most of the indicated sites. Another advantage to this site is that it contains a possible connection to the Youghiogheny River Trail. Though part of the property is under USEPA and PADEP cleanup, there is sufficient acreage to develop a recreation complex. A recreation complex could be developed upgradient and distant from the clean-up area. If this site were chosen, it has the stigma attached to it as a hazardous waste dump. A public involvement campaign would be needed to convince parents it was a safe site for recreation. The site is also advantageous because of the property owner’s willingness to negotiate to make the property acquisition more feasible. The major disadvantage of this site is that recreation development and associated traffic could create additional noise and increased traffic due to sporting events. The traffic could create problems with residents along Henderson Road, Oak Street, and safety concerns at the intersection of Buena Vista and Henderson Road. This problem can be alleviated. Mitigation would involve over half of a mile of new roadway extended from Henderson Road in addition to the extensive upgrades needed on Henderson Road approaching the site. The area is along the 100-year floodplain and is relatively flat. Utilities and roadway access are not readily accessible, but could be made available. (See Appendix B, Figure 3B for a property site location map.)

• Seven Springs Site

At the time of the study, this twenty (20) acre property was for sale. The site is adjacent to both a golf course and residential properties. Though it contains twenty (20) acres, the site location, orientation, and size are not conducive to active recreation development.



Site distance and set back requirements from the highway create potential driveway access safety concern. This site will receive no further consideration. (See Appendix B, Figure 4B for a property site location map.)

• Boston Riverfront

The Boston Riverfront Park has utilities, immediate trail access, and is a conducive site for recreation. However, it is almost fully developed with little potential for additional recreational development. Portions of the property are included in the 100-year floodplain. It is not desirable to make significant changes to the site to meet current recreation needs. No further study or consideration for this site to house a recreation complex will be conducted. (See Appendix B, Figure 5B for a property site location map.)

• Round Hill Park – Soccer Site

This site currently hosts the area soccer fields. However, expansion for further recreational needs would be expensive due to the growth of grading necessary for additional parking, site drainage, and storm water management. There are also conflicts with the existing agricultural operations. While this section of Round Hill Park is isolated from other land use, utility service to this high elevation property would also prove to be costly. (See Appendix B, Figure 6B for a property site location map.)

• Round Hill Park – Nike Site

This site is isolated from other recreation land use and is compatible with the farm use of Round Hill Park. Fields located in the area are not presently part of the farm operation and could be converted to recreational use with reasonable cut and fill limits. The site is accessible from Skyline Drive off of Pine View Drive. Access and egress issues, along with utility availability, will need to be studied in further detail. There is water and electricity accessible to the site. However, the site is not compatible with a Council of Government (COG) operated shooting range for local police officers that is currently located in this area. Topography issues also exist as narrow hillsides prevent a cohesive complex and require extensive roadways. (See Appendix B, Figure 7B for a property site location map.)

• Round Hill Park – Northern Site

This site is located near the intersection of SR 0048 and Scenery Drive. A perennial stream runs through the site. Set back and permit requirements are a hindrance. During the public involvement process, considerable discontent was registered among adjacent property owners. This site is located adjacent to the high school football stadium, but a point of access and close proximity to the intersection of SR 0048 and Scenery Drive is a concern. Set back requirements from the roadway and stream location limit the site’s development for a recreation complex. The required amount of acreage for a building, parking, storm water management, and other amenities is likely to be too great for this area. (See Appendix B, Figure 8B for a property site location map.)



• The Higher Ground Gospel Church (“Church”) Property The Church Property was a late consideration in the feasibility study, but seems viable. It is centrally located within the Township, behind the municipal building and has an existing baseball field with utility, access, and zoning capabilities. Also, the existing church can serve as a very capable multi-purpose recreation building. While the property has sections of favorable topography, its lack of acreage makes the construction of soccer fields to be virtually impossible. Also, property acquisition is an issue. It is recommended that this lot be developed into a baseball complex with a recreation building, trail, and event area. (See Appendix B, Figure 9B for a property site location map.)

• No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative is another consideration within a feasible study. It is utilized if all of the other sites and recreation ventures are determined to “not be feasible.” This concept addresses areas to improve in order to better meet Township recreation needs, rather than adding more facilities to an area.

The following criteria were utilized to evaluate the feasibility of the properties with regard to their use as a recreation center:

Zoning Capability • Recreation center complex is compatible with surrounding land use, planned

development, and comprehensive plans. Utility

• Utilities (gas, electric, water, and sewage) are on-site or nearby. Access/Traffic

• Site is centrally located, with good roadway access and potential site drives can be placed with good sight distance.

• As a potential traffic generator, a recreation complex will likely not be detrimental to the roadway’s level of service (LOS).

Environmental • Overall environmental condition of the site is good with no visual signs or odors of

hazardous material releases, stressed vegetation, or surface water discoloration. • Adjacent properties show no visual signs of contamination. • Environmental constraints (floodways, wetlands, streams, etc.) would not restrict

development. • If developed, on-site storm water runoff is manageable.

Acreage • Acreage is sufficient for a multi-purpose building, recreation fields, parking, storm

water management, etc. Area is large enough to meet current demand and future needs (20+ acres are required).

Topography • Availability and access to flat, level sites for building(s) and athletic fields are

practical and feasible without excessive engineering or cut and fill requirements.



The site analysis of the aforementioned properties is illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Site Location Analysis

Poor Fair Good

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Round Hill Park - Nike Site

SITELOCATION

Round Hill Park - Northern

Church Property

Howell (90 ac. off Lincoln Road)

Fiore Property

Seven Springs Site (20 ac.)

Boston Riverfront

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Acc

ess/

Tra

ffic

Env

iron

men

tal

Acr

eage

Top

ogra

phy

Util

ity

Zon

ing

Com

patib

ility

L

and

Use

Round Hill Park - Soccer Site (Existing)

Alternative Analysis After analyzing the project study sites, the Fiore Property and Church Property were determined to be the most conducive to recreation center development. The Fiore Property offers substantial acreage of flat lands, scenic views, and a natural connection with the Youghiogheny River Trail. While more limited in size and scope, the Church Property offers a centralized location, an existing building, an existing baseball field, and is linked to the municipal building. These sites will be carried forward for detailed study in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) Feasibility Study requirements. The next step of the feasibility study was to determine if there were legal restrictions on the two selected properties. In addition, a recreation need study was required to determine what recreation facilities are best suited to meet local demands and how these properties were best suited for recreation sites.



V. LEGAL FEASIBILITY The Church Property is currently for sale and is listed by Howard Hanna Realty. The parish has been dismantled. Accordingly, there are no known reasons as to why the Township could not purchase and develop the property. Discussions have occurred with owners of the Fiore Property. While parts of the property are under reclamation by the PADEP, sections of the property along the western border are not contaminated and are available for use. The owner(s) have interest in developing the remainder of the property. There may be conflicts among heirs or caveats attached to the sale or disposition of property. There is also the possibility of the Township to obtain a 25-year lease. If this were the case, it would be recommended the Township only place soccer fields on the property with no buildings. As the Township continues to develop, the Township officials should consider a Township ordinance regarding the preservation of open space and setting aside land for recreation. In recent years it has become common practice across Pennsylvania for municipal governments to request that property be set aside for recreation when developers create plans for residential properties. Residential developments increase the need for local government to provide recreation spaces and services. A resolution merits consideration of adoption by Township officials.



VI. USAGE FEASIBILITY The usage feasibility explores how practical the addition of recreational amenities would be in the Township. It also helps determine the best use of the preferred alternative sites. This concept is based upon both the current demographics of the area, the recreation facilities that are currently available to the public, and the types of recreational facilities being considered to meet the recreation needs of the community. Population Analysis People have different recreation interests due to differences in age, family status, income level, health, and other variances in demographics. Therefore, it is critical to identify the following characteristics listed above, especially the present predominant age groups within Elizabeth Township, as well as to project these age groups into the future, so that the Township can effectively plan recreation centers that are the most practical and feasible for its residents. Elizabeth Township’s population as of 2000 is 13,839 residents. The Township’s population has slightly decreased in size over the past forty (40) years and is projected to do so in the future. Population Sizes

Table 5 - Elizabeth Township Population Statistics

Current Statistics Population Projections

2000 Population

% Change in Population from 1960-2000 2010 2020

13,839 -2.26% 12,488 12,967

Elizabeth Township is also an aging community. The median age increased from 39.3 years in 1990 to 43.3 years in 2000. Residents age 35 and older comprise almost 73 percent of the Township’s population. The largest age group is the 35-54 year olds comprising 41.4 percent of the population. This type of age group typically forms the backbone of a community. There is often a high percentage of homeowners in this age cohort, with higher incomes and less demand of public services. With an increasing median age and a large “middle-aged” group, Elizabeth Township must plan accordingly for the future of the area.



Table 6 - Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)

POPULATION Demographic Number Percent Under 5 years 664 4.8% 5 to 9 years 824 6.0% 10 to 14 years 913 6.6% 15 to 19 years 852 6.2% 20 to 24 years 581 4.2% 25 to 34 years 1,375 9.9% 35 to 44 years 2,093 15.1% 45 to 54 years 2,273 16.4% 55 to 59 years 825 6.0% 60 to 64 years 739 5.3% 65 to 74 years 1,391 10.1% 75 to 84 years 1,012 7.3% 85 years and over 297 2.1% Total Female 7,198 52.0% Total Male 6,641 48.0% Total Population 13,839 100.0% Median Age in 1990 39.3 years Median Age in 2000 43.3 years

Elizabeth Township has a relatively homogeneous population with a much lower percentage of minorities than the state (2.6 percent versus 14.6 percent). In 2000, the racial make-up of the Township consisted of 97.4 percent white, 1.7 percent African American, 0.3 percent Asian, 0.4 percent Hispanic, and 0.6 percent “Other.” It should be noted that the African American population declined 0.6 percent from 1990 to 2000.

Table 7 - Percentages of Ethnic Groups Within Elizabeth Township 1990 2000 Demographic Number Percent Number Percent

Population 14,712 100.0% 13,839 100.0% White 14,312 97.3% 13,473 97.4% African American 334 2.3% 234 1.7% Native American 10 0.1% 6 0.0% Asian 46 0.3% 38 0.3% Hispanic 53 0.4% 51 0.4% Other 10 0.1% 88 0.6%

Elizabeth Township is comprised of primarily family households, living in owner-occupied housing units with married couples. Three quarters of the households in Elizabeth Township are families of which 62.5 percent are married couple families. One third of the households have individuals younger than 18 years old, while another one third of households consists of at least one individual over 65 years old.



Table 8 - Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)

HOUSEHOLDS Demographic Number Percent HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE Family households 4,105 75.1% ...With own children <18 years 1,547 28.3% Married-couple family 3,419 62.5% ...With own children <18 years 1,243 22.7% Female householder, no husband 499 9.1% ...With own children <18 years 224 4.1% Non-family households 1,362 24.9% …Householder living alone 1,213 22.2% …Householder >65 years 629 11.5% Households w/individuals <18 years 1,678 30.7% Households w/individuals >65 years 1,817 33.2% Total households 5,467 100.0% Average household size 2.50 - Average family size 2.92 - HOUSING OCCUPANCY Occupied Housing Units 5,467 96.3% Vacant Housing Units 211 3.7% Seasonal/Rec/Occasional Use 12 0.2% Total Housing Units 5,678 100.0% Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.3% - Rental Vacancy Rate 4.3% - HOUSING TENURE Owner-occupied housing units 4,618 84.5% Renter-occupied housing units 849 15.5% Total occupied housing units 5,467 100.0% Average household size (owners) 2.56 - Average household size (renters) 2.14 -

A key to the continual growth of Elizabeth Township is to attract businesses and develop a labor base. Attracting a strong labor base needs to include young people with diverse backgrounds and educations. Elizabeth Township needs to develop a recreation facility to accommodate teams or groups that will be multicultural in gender, age, and ethnicity. Education Elizabeth Township school enrollment is illustrated in Table 9. The highest percentage of students is enrolled in elementary school. The percentages of students enrolled in the various levels of education correspond well with the demographics of the area. Thus, most, if not all, children in the area are enrolled in some level of education.



Table 9 - School Enrollment in Elizabeth Township (2000)

Demographic Number Percent Nursery school, preschool 259 8.1% Kindergarten 175 5.5% Elementary school (grades 1-8) 1,382 43.3% High school (grades 9-12) 879 27.6% College or graduate school 494 15.5% Total population (>3 yrs.) enrolled in school 3,189 100.0%

The level of education accomplished consists of much smaller percentages of the “over 25” age group. Less than half of these residents are high school graduates. However, Elizabeth Township holds higher numbers than both the county and state in the percent of high school graduates and Associate’s Degree holders. Elizabeth Township was equal to the state in the percentage of residents with their Bachelor’s Degree (14.0 percent), but had less than Allegheny County.

Table 10 – Educational Attainment in Elizabeth Township (2000) Percent of persons 25

and older that are high school graduates

Percent of persons 25 and older with their Associate's Degree

Percent of persons 25 and older with their Bachelor's Degree

Elizabeth Township 42.3% 10.0% 14.0%

Allegheny County 33.9% 7.1% 17.3%

Pennsylvania 38.1% 5.9% 14.0%

Table 11 - Household and Family Income in Elizabeth Township (1999) HOUSEHOLDS FAMILIES

INCOME IN 1999 Amount Percent Amount Percent

Total Households/Families 5,484 100.0% 4,158 100.0%Less than $10,000 375 6.8% 101 2.4%$10,000 to $14,999 347 6.3% 150 3.6%$15,000 to $24,999 627 11.4% 380 9.1%$25,000 to $34,999 788 14.4% 608 14.6%$35,000 to $49,999 946 17.3% 790 19.0%$50,000 to $74,999 1,348 24.6% 1,189 28.6%$75,000 to $99,999 560 10.2% 474 11.4%$100,000 to $149,999 370 6.7% 352 8.5%$150,000 to $199,999 68 1.2% 59 1.4%$200,000 or more 55 1.0% 55 1.3%Median household income $42,463 - - -Median family income - - $50,740 -



Per capita income - - $20,904 -Median earnings: Male full-time, year-round workers - - $41,145 -Female full-time, year-round workers - - $25,988 -Households with… Earnings 4,112 75.0% - -…Mean earnings $52,898 - - -Social Security income 2,042 37.2% - -..Mean Social Security income $12,552 - - -Supplemental Security income 109 2.0% - -..Mean Supplemental Security income $5,385 - - -Public assistance income 108 2.0% - -…Mean public assistance Income $2,151 - - -Retirement income 1,334 24.3% - -…Mean retirement income $18,041 - - -

Elizabeth Township’s median household income in 1999 was $42,463, with approximately 42 percent of households earning between $35,000 and $74,999 annually. The Township’s median income is relatively higher at $50,740 annually. Both the median family and household incomes are slightly higher than the state’s median income level. Three quarters of the Township is categorized as “earnings,” while over one third of the population receives Social Security income, and another quarter receive a retirement income. Only a fraction of households receive either supplemental security income or public assistance. The median income for male full-time workers is substantially higher than females (men earn 37 percent more than women in Elizabeth Township).

Table 12 – Family and Household Income (2000) Median Family Income

Elizabeth Township $50,740 Pennsylvania $49,184

Median Household Income Elizabeth Township $42,463 Pennsylvania $40,106

Marital Status Elizabeth Township has a dominant population of married couples (see Table 12). However, even a small amount of single-parent households can have a significant impact on the ability of a family to partake in recreational activities.



Table 13 - Marital Status/Grandparent Care in Elizabeth Township (2000)

Demographic Number Percent MARITAL STATUS Never married 2,299 20.1% Now married (except separated) 7,406 64.7% Separated 139 1.2% Widowed 893 7.8% ..…Female 766 6.7% Divorced 715 6.2% …..Female 440 3.8% Population 15 years and older 11,452 100.0% GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS Grandparent living in household with one or more own grandchildren <18 years 13 -

Grandparent responsible for grandchildren 7 -

With 1.2 percent separated and 6.2 percent divorced, there are 854 single-parent homes in Elizabeth Township, which affect recreation needs. Single parents generally have less time to get children to and from recreation facilities and programs. The large amount of area that Elizabeth Township makes up also has an impact. Some children cannot walk or bike to facilities or program sites. Less free time available for single parents and the location of facilities and programs can impact how often a single parent can transport children to and from activities and sites. Developing a User Profile A review of Township demographics revealed that residents age 35 and older comprise almost 75 percent of the Township, with seniors, age 65 and older; representing 19.5 percent of this statistic. Therefore, the recreation center must meet the needs of these age groups, as well as the young. Several key-person interview respondents indicated the Township needed to develop a recreation center to make the Township more attractive to young adults. A recreation center was also cited as an attraction to retain or attract the 20 to 34 year old cohort into the Township. Currently this age group only accounts for 14.1 percent of the Township population. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards A comparison of available recreation facilities in the Township to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards is illustrated below in Figure 17. Table 4 provides a summary of Elizabeth Township recreation facilities. Appendix C includes an illustration that indicates the location of each of these facilities in the Township.



The “National Standards” have been adopted by the NRPA as the current means to determine a recommended ratio of acreage of open space in comparison to population or per capita. The purpose of the publication is to underscore the most important objectives of the park and recreation planning process; to ensure that a community knows how to go about securing enough of the right kind of land to provide the scale of recreation space system the majority of the citizenry desire. In growth impacted communities such as Elizabeth Township, land for parks and recreation is often at a premium and needs to be acquired in a timely manner before land is lost forever. The same is true for those elements of the community landscape which should be protected through some kind of community open lands preservation program.



Table 4 - Inventory of the Recreation Facilities within Elizabeth Township Site Site Name Site Address Block & Lot / Tax Total Type of Handicap Facility

# / Property ID # Acreage Parcel Accessible InventoryBASEBALLBASKETBALLPARKING PICNICPLAYGROUND

TRAIL 2 PARKINGOTHER 2 PICNIC

2 RESTROOMBASKETBALLTENNISBASKETBALLPARKING PLAYGROUNDBASKETBALLPARKING BASEBALLBOATINGFISHING3 PARKINGPICNICPLAYGROUNDRESTROOMSOCCER

7 Central School Playground Rock Run Road 1129-B-275 N/A SCHOOL Yes PLAYGROUNDBASKETBALLPARKING NATURE9 PICNIC3 RESTROOM4 SOCCER3+ PLAYGROUNDPARKING PLAYGROUND

11 Industry Ballfield Maria St. 1266-B-58 N/A OTHER Unknown BASEBALLBASEBALLPARKING PICNIC

Greenock Buena BASEBALLVista Road PARKING

BASEBALLPARKING BASEBALLPARKING BASEBALLPARKING PICNICRESTROOMBASEBALLFOOTBALLRESTROOMSOCCERBASKETBALLPLAYGROUNDBASEBALLBASKETBALLPARKING BASEBALLPARKING PLAYGROUNDTENNIS

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

16

17

18

10

12

13

14

19

20

Blythedale Playground

Buena Vista

Greenock Playground

Boston Basketball Court

Boston Tot Lot1

Victory School

Round Hill Park2

15

No

Youghiogheny River Trail N/A N/A N/A Yes

Parkview 1569-D-78 3.651 PARKLET

Wildcat Hollow 1127-A-269 N/A OTHER

Lutheran Lane 651-J-58 N/A PARKLET

E. Smithfield St. 653-G-231 N/A OTHER

Donner St. 653-K-174 N/A PARKLET

Douglas Run 1733-M-219 N/A OTHER

N/A N/A 1101 REGIONAL

PARKLET

Twele Ballfiled Twele Road 651-F-325 3.93 OTHER

Stoneybrook Andover 1270-D-342 367

Lucas Butler Memorial Field 652-H-118 N/A OTHER

McHenry Ballfield

Blaine Hill Recreation Area

Elizabeth Forward HS Fields3

Timothy Drive Tot Lot

Municipal Field

Georgetown 997-B-98 0.0424Mt. Vernon Youth Association OTHER

Rock Run Road 1129-L-251 N/A OTHER

Jefferies Drive 1269-D-317 N/A

1132-G-230 232 OTHER

Weigles Hill 1417-C-43 N/A OTHER

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

Scenery Drive 1130-C-54

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

N/A OTHER

Kendall Way

Data Source: Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan

Boston Mehodist Church Field

Yes

Unknown

Yes

E. Smithfield St. 653-G-194 N/A OTHER

NOTE: The following comments on soccer fields were made by Drew Mueller, President, EFSA. 1 One small field as listed, is not large enough for a full-size field. 2 Only one full-size field at this site. 3 The turf football field is available for soccer in the spring only and at a cost of $300 for the season plus $30 to $38 per hour. The cost makes it prohibitive to use for practices. The EFSA Soccer Association reserves it for 8 Sundays at approximately $2,000.



Determining Park Facility Needs and Program Demand Analysis The demand analysis involved a five-pronged approach for determining what citizens currently desire, what they want in the future, and the park and recreation activities in which they currently participate. The demand analysis consisted of performing:

1. Community needs assessment (survey). 2. Program analysis identifying recreation participation. 3. Comparison of facilities to National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards. 4. Park & Recreation Board, Steering Committee, and public meetings to obtain public

input on need for facilities and programs. 5. Demographic analysis.

The purpose of the demand analysis is to:

• Determine current activities and the most popular park resources. • Provide an opportunity for community input and participation in the planning process. • Establish a database of important facts for the Township. • Determine current trends or changes in the desires of residents. • Determine facility updates, new facilities needed, and program needs.

Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines The NRPA recognizes the importance of establishing and using park and recreation standards as:

1. A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for citizens of urban and rural communities.

2. A guideline to determine land requirements for various types of park and recreation areas and facilities.

3. A basis for relating recreational needs to spatial analysis within a community-wide system of parks and open space areas.

4. A major reference to guide and assist regional park and recreation development. 5. A means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land-use pattern

of a region or community. The purpose of the NRPA guidelines is to present park and recreation space standards that are applicable nationwide for planning, acquisition, and development of park, recreation, and open space lands, primarily at the community level. These standards were viewed and used solely as a guide for this study. NRPA standards address minimum, not maximum, goals to be achieved. The standards were interpreted according to Elizabeth Township’s specific local needs.



A variety of standards have been developed by professional and trade associations, which are used throughout the country. The basic standards were derived from early studies of park acreages located within metropolitan and rural areas. Over time, the figure of 10 acres per 1,000 people came to be the commonly accepted standard used by a majority of communities. Other standards adopted include the “percent of area” approach, needs determined by user characteristics and participation projections, and area use based on the carrying capacity of the land. The fact that some of the standards have changed substantially is not an indication of their obsolescence. Changes are a measure of the growing awareness and understanding of both participant and resource (land, water, etc.) limitations. Parks are for people, and in this study, the residents of Elizabeth Township.

Figure 14 - Recreation Facility Comparison in Elizabeth Township to the National Standards

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Baseball/Sof tball Basketball Boat ing Access DesignatedFishing A rea

Football Nature Facilit y Picnic Pavillion Playground Soccer/Hockey Tennis

Present Facilities Minimum

Figure 14 and Table 14 provide a summary of facilities that are needed according to the NRPA standards. While the standards do not dictate a need for sports fields (football, soccer, baseball, softball), a recreation complex for sports tournaments was cited as a need in the public comment forms and by key-person interviews.



Activity/Facility

Basketball1. Youth 2,400-3,036 sq. ft. 46-50' x 84'

2. High School 5,040-7,280 sq. ft. 50' x 84' 1 per 5,000 2/2with 5' unobstructed

space on all sides

Ice Skating22,000 sq. ft. including

support area

Rink 85'x200' (minimum 85'x185') Additional

5,000 sq. ft. support areaLong axis north-south, if

outdoor

Indoor - 1 per 100,000

Outdoor - depends on climate

0/0

TennisMinimum of 7,200 sq. ft. single court (2 acres for

complex)

36' x 78' 12' clearance; both sides 21' clearance; both ends

Long axis north-south 1 court per 2,000 0/6

Volleyball Minimum of 4,000 sq. ft.30' x 60'

Minimum 6' clearance on all sides

Long axis north-south 1 per 5,000 0/2

Baselines – 60’

Pitching distance - 46' Foul lines - 200'

Center field - 200'-250'

Softball 1.5 to 2.0 A

Baselines - 60' Pitching distance - 46'

min. 40' 250' to center field

Same as baseball1 per 5,000 (if also

used for youth baseball)

0/0

Minimum

1.5 AMinimum

1.5 A

Soccer 1.7 - 2.1 A195' to 225' x 330' to 360'

with a minimum 10' clearance on all sides

Same as field hockey 1 per 10,000 6/0

Fitness Trail 4.3 A

Overall width - 276' Length - 600.02'

Track width for 8 to 4 lanes is 32'

Long axis in sector from north to south to north-

west-south-east with finish line at northerly end

1 per 20,000 0/1

Multiple Recreation Court (basketball, volleyball, tennis)

9,840 sq. ft. 120' x 80'Long axis of courts with

primary use is north-south

1 per 10,000 0/1

Trails N/A

Well defined head maximum 10' width,

maximum average grade is 5% not to exceed 15%. Capacity rural trails - 40 hikers/day/mile. Urban

trails - 90 hikers/day/mile.

N/A 1 system per region 1/0

Long axis north-south

Table 14 - Recreation Facilities: Existing versus Need

Recommended Space Requirements

Recommended Size and Dimensions

Recommended Orientation

No. of Units per Population

Elizabeth Twp. Park Needs

Existing/Need

0/0

Field Hockey180' x 300' with a

minimum of 6' clearance on all sides

Fall season - long axis northwest to southwest.

For longer periods, north-south.

1 per 20,000 6/0

Baseball 1.2 A minimum

1/0Football

160' x 360' with a minimum of 6' clearance

on all sides Same as field hockey 1 per 20,000



Site Topography and Roadway Impact Analysis The topography and roadway network of the Township is such that all available facilities are scattered. Other than Round Hill Park, the Township has no centralized active park. It is here that the need lies. There is currently no existing Township park typical of the description for a “community park” as provided in the NRPA, Recreation and Greenway Guidelines. The purpose of a community park is to focus on “meeting community based recreation needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.” Demographic profiles (13,839 residents, 5,467 households) population density, resource availability, and recreation demand within the service area are the primary determinants for the size of the community park. As this study reveals, Elizabeth Township has a considerable number of ball fields, but lacks a centralized community park for both passive and active recreational pursuits. Based on the public involvement results and an initial alternative site analysis, two (2) properties were examined in further detail: the Fiore Property and the Higher Ground Gospel Church Property. These properties were studied to determine what facilities they were best suited for based on the topography, acreage, utilities, and potential development cost.



VII. VISION FOR THE FUTURE

The initial scopes of work for this project called for the consultant to only provide “bubble drawings” of a potential site within Round Hill Park for a possible recreation center and develop a cost estimate of this endeavor. Input from the public involvement process and study committee recommendations resulted in nine (9) various scenarios with four (4) properties:

• Higher Group Gospel Church Property • Fiore Property • Nike Property at Round Hill Park • Northern Section of Round Hill Park

The Higher Ground Gospel Church Property and Scenario #3 of the Fiore Property were determined to be the most feasible and practical sites to meet the recreation needs of the Township. Given the topography of the other sites, it was determined these two (2) sites were topographically the best suited for a recreation complex. The earthwork costs associated with all of all the other sites rendered them unfeasible to develop. Rather than simply produce “bubble drawings,” PBS&J utilized the software package, Geopack, to determine quantities of earthwork required for recreation field pads, buildings, roadway improvements, and utility excavation. Geopack is a comprehensive software package that allows users to undertake geostatistical analyses of spatially correlated data. The program generates graphics (linear plots, contour and block diagrams); computes basic statistics (mean, median, variance, skew); runs programs for linear regression and polynomial regression; calculates linear estimations and nonlinear estimations; and determines sample semivariograms and cross-semivariograms. Geopack also allows users to incorporate additional programs at a later date without having to later pervious programs or recompile the entire system. Volume quantities are calculated on a three-dimensional model. Costs were determined through national standards. Fiore Property The Fiore Property cost estimate has been developed under the assumption that the property will be donated to the Township. Site Advantages:

• Convenient to the Youghiogheny River Trail • Relatively flat terrain with panoramic view of river • Compatible with surrounding land use



Site Disadvantages: • Roadway access • Utility availability • Private Ownership

Site Layout:

• Area for restrooms and concession • Three (3) soccer fields

Tables 15 and 16 provide the preliminary cost estimate to develop the project for recreation, which includes a soccer complex. At the present time, the property is under private ownership. The recommendation is to obtain a 25-year lease (minimum) to develop a soccer complex. No permanent large structures (buildings) are recommended, unless a longer lease or acquisition occurs. Access improvements are necessary. A small concession stand/restroom building would be necessary for tournaments.



Table 15. Fiore Property III Quantity Takeoff

Clearing and Grubbing 3.3 Acre Large Soccer Field (Park1)1.8 Acre Parking Lot (Park3)2 Acre Small Soccer Field (Park 5)

3.2 Acre Large Soccer Field (Park6)3.5 Acre Complex (Park 7)

+ 0.1 Acre All New Roads13.9 Acre

7608 SY

12376 LY

9854 SY

31000 SY

7.3 Acre

560 SF

SUM CUT FILLExcavation 457 40000 39543 CY Total Excavation

New Roads 942 LY4 LY

+ 5 LY951 LY

* 8 LY

Upgrade Existing 1547 LYRoads * 8 LY

Parking 733 SY Inside Complex(Minimum 9680 SY) 537 SY Inside Complex

2245 SY+ 6339 SY

Sod 7534 SY Small Soccer Field11733 SY Large Soccer Field

+ 11733 SY Large Soccer Field

Seeding 1.8 Acre Small Soccer Field2.8 Acre Large Soccer Field

+ 2.7 Acre Large Soccer Field

Building Size

Earthwork

Soccer Fields

Building FootprintsRestroom/Concession Building

Parking

Roads



Table 16A. Fiore Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total

Clearing and Grubbing 13.9 Acre $4,000.00 $55,600Class 1 Excavation 40000 CY $8.00 $320,000

12" RCP 700 LF $70.00 $49,00018" RCP 380 LF $80.00 $30,400Inlets 7 Each $2,000.00 $14,000

Sod 31000 SY $2.50 $77,500Fencing, 4 ft. Chain Link (1 per field) 3 Fields $12,000.00 $36,000Seeding 7.3 Acre $166.67 $1,217

Super Secure Restroom Building Kit 560 SF $30,000Base/Utilities (Electric, Water, Sewage) - $22,000

TOTAL $635,717$95,358

$731,074$43,864

$774,939

Contingency (15%)

Escalation (6%/Year)

Drainage

Soccer Fields*

Earthwork

Building Footprints/Utilities

*Goals, benches, bleachers, scoreboards, etc. would need to be supplied by the Soccer Association.

Roadway and parking improvements would need to come from the Township road program. An estimate of these incurred costs is provided in Table 16B.

Table 16B. Roadway and Parking Access Cost Estimate

1.5" Wearing 7608 SY $7.00 $53,2562" Binder 7608 SY $7.00 $53,2564" BCBC 7608 SY $20.00 $152,1606" 2A Subbase 7608 SY $7.50 $57,060

1.5" Milling 12376 SY $4.50 $55,6921.5" Wearing 12376 SY $7.00 $86,632

1.5" Wearing 9854 SY $7.00 $68,9786" BCBC 9854 SY $24.00 $236,4966" 2A Subbase 9854 SY $7.50 $73,905Total Costs $837,435

Existing Roads

Parking

New Roads

Higher Ground Gospel Church Property The Church Property is displayed in Appendix B, Figure 9B. Site Advantages:

• Existing building adaptable to recreation • Existing utilities



• Roadway access • Proximity to the Township municipal building and maintenance garage • Vegetative buffer between property and adjacent homes

Site Disadvantages:

• Under private ownership, but for sale • Topography for soccer is inhibitive

Tables 17 and 18 provide the quantities and associated cost estimated to develop the property for recreation. The site has much to offer, but soccer fields are better suited for the Fiore Property site.

Table 17. Church Property Quantity Takeoff

Clearing and Grubbing 4 Acres

SUM CUT FILLExcavation 1 14663 14662 CY

New Roads 275 LY* 4 LY

1100 SY

Parking 3226 SY

Sod 10327 SYSeeding 2.1 Acre

Earthwork

Roads

Parking

Baseball Field



Table 18. Church Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total

Clearing and Grubbing 4 Acre $6,000.00 $24,000Class 1 Excavation 14663 CY $8.00 $117,304

1.5" Wearing (Roads) 1100 SY $7.00 $7,7002" Binder (Roads) 1100 SY $7.00 $7,7004" BCBC (Roads) 1100 SY $20.00 $22,0006" 2A Subbase (Roads) 1100 SY $7.50 $8,250

1.5" Wearing (Parking) 3226 SY $7.00 $22,5826" BCBC (Parking) 3226 SY $24.00 $77,4246" 2A Subbase (Parking) 3226 SY $7.50 $24,195

12" RCP 1000 LF $70.00 $70,00018" RCP 500 LF $80.00 $40,000Inlets 10 EACH $2,000.00 $20,000

Sod 10327 SY $2.50 $25,818Backstop, Chain Link, Galv ( 1 per field) 3 Each $2,200.00 $6,600Dugouts (2 per field) 6 Each $3,400.00 $20,400Bleachers (2 per field - 4 for HS Field) 8 Each $1,850.00 $14,800Fencing, 4 ft. Chain Link (1 per field) 3 Fields $12,000.00 $36,000Scoreboard (1 per field) 3 Each $2,400.00 $7,200Seeding 2.1 Acre $166.67 $350

Electric/Phone (2 - 6" Schedule 40) 250 LF $22.80 $5,700 ***Electric Company 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 ***Gas (3" Schedule 40) 250 LF $19.00 $4,750 ***Water (4" DI) 250 LF $30.00 $7,500 ***Sewage (6" SDR 35) 250 LF $25.00 $6,250 ***Sanitary Manholes 2 EACH $2,500.00 $5,000 ***

Property Acquisition 19.1 Acre xxx $500,000Mobilization $150,000

TOTAL $1,251,523$187,728

$1,439,251$86,355

$1,525,606

Contingency (15%)

Escalation (6%/Year)

Earthwork

Roads

Parking

Drainage

Baseball Fields

Utilities

Other Costs

***Unit prices derived from Washington Square Job Costs Note: Cost estimate does not include many factors; i.e. Building cost, lighting, trails, landscaping, drainage (where

necessary), and other characteristics of the built environment (sidewalks, guardrails, stairs, etc.).



As a result of the survey process, key-person interviews, and Steering Committee comments, the need was placed on areas to have centralized baseball/softball and soccer tournaments, as well as for areas for senior citizens to gather, and trails. Though the number of play fields may be adequate according to current NRPA standards, there is a need to have fields centralized for tournament play. Tournaments can also provide a means to raise funds for capital improvements and maintenance. Locating both a baseball and soccer complex in one (1) area to meet Elizabeth Township needs requires a minimum of twenty (20) acres of flat, developable land. Given the physiograpic terrain of the Township, that is not a feasible endeavor at a reasonable cost. Converting the Church Property into a recreation center with a baseball complex seems logical, while the Fiore Property can be developed into a soccer complex. The existing Church Property can also host a basketball/tennis court complex. The existing building is easily adaptable for senior citizen usage, holding events, summer day/nature camps, or other events including private rentals.



VIII. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION

CONSIDERATIONS The difficulty herein lies in the fact as to whether or not acquisition and development of the Church Property and Fiore Property are economically feasible for Elizabeth Township. It is a decision that ultimately lies within the hands Township supervisors. While the results of the survey indicated 87.7 percent of the respondents did not want to see any new taxes to fund the recreation complex, some funds from the Township general fund are inevitable. Whether funds come from the Township general fund without raising the bottom line is a decision on the part of the Board of Supervisors. Table 19 provides the projected total costs of developing both the Church Property and the Fiore Property. Cost does not include new roadway improvements to the access road.

Table 19. Church Property/Fiore Property: Total Costs Subject CostFiore Property (Recreation) $774,939Church Property $1,525,606Total $2,300,545

Elizabeth Township Park and Recreation Allocation With a total population of 13,839 residents, Elizabeth Township falls within the middle of those Pennsylvania municipalities between 10,000 and 14,999 residents. According to the latest Budget and Salary Survey provided by the PADCNR and the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society (PRPS), the per capita expenditure for parks and recreation for municipalities this size is $19.03. The annual allocation for Elizabeth Township should be around $229,597. Over a ten (10) year period, that would amount to $2,295,670 without inflation or population increases or decreases. Over the ten (10) year period, recreation development could be feasible. Grants would help reach the goal before the ten (10) year period concludes. Proposed Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Budget Projected Operating and Maintenance Expenses Administration Some general administrative cost increases will occur as the park develops. Blanket insurance coverage will increase as facilities and programs are developed and added. Proper construction specifications, techniques, planning, and continued preventive maintenance will prevent accidents and keep insurance premiums at a respectable level.



Other general increases in office supplies, mailing, advertisements, and phone bills are anticipated during the early development years. Public relations expenditures should involve the dedication of various facilities as they are added, as well as other programs such as “volunteer of the year,” group awards, acknowledgment for corporate donations, etc. Training of staff and volunteers must keep pace with current trends in the leisure services and related fields. Personnel Part-time seasonal recreation position(s) and maintenance position(s) should be created. These would be part-time Township employees with no fringe benefits. Some overtime could be expected on weekends, program offerings, holidays, and special events if so directed by the Township. Part-time college students, high school students, or previously retired individuals may be desirable as employees under the direction of the Township supervisors. Park, recreation, or physical education interns from local colleges could be hired under the management and supervision of the Township supervisors. “Co-ops” and free labor for college credit can come from local colleges to assist with creating and administering programs. Materials/Supplies These supplies are necessary to carry out the maintenance program for the park when the park is completely developed. These would include fertilizer for the fields, cleaning agents needed for restrooms and buildings, paint for play equipment, hoses, signs, tractor fuel, equipment lubricants, and minor tools, etc. A capital equipment maintenance budget should be established to purchase mowing equipment. Programming The organizing for special events and programs will require staff and volunteer hours. Much of this effort can be provided by volunteers. Maintenance Keeping the recreation center in good repair so people want to use the facilities is important. Considerable on-going administrative effort is imperative to foster good planning. An ongoing commitment by Township officials will be needed to maintain the park in peak condition. Maintenance will involve as a minimum:

1. Regular – grass mowing, litter and waste receptacle pickup, restroom cleaning and maintenance, inspections of playground equipment/fences/gates, trail wood chipping, court/building/pavilion cleaning.

2. Seasonal – flower bed planting and weeding, drinking fountain and plumbing maintenance, fertilizer, pest control, sprinkler maintenance (grassy areas), leaf raking/blowing, pruning.

3. Periodic – ball field/in-field dragging, sign maintenance, graffiti removal, storm damage repairs and plumbing, painting, carpentry repairs



Recreation Center Revenues Daily admission or entrance fees can be charged for arts and crafts shows, antique car shows, flea markets, tournaments, etc. Seasonal permits can be offered for ball field use or picnic areas. Facility rental costs can be set by the Township annually to keep pace with rising maintenance costs. Classes, lessons, and programs including art and nature or sports camps can include modest maintenance fees. Privately run week-long summer sports camps can create modest park revenue. Concession stand operation could be contracted out by the Township during holiday and special events, ball games, and tournaments and revenue could be used to offset maintenance costs. If volunteers cannot be found, concessions can be controlled by the individual sports group with a percentage of sales going to the park fund. Donations from individuals, clubs, or associations and corporations should be formally encouraged. The Township should consider the establishment of a Parks and Recreation Foundation. This foundation would provide the Parks & Recreation Board with a formal method of receiving gifts and endowments from individuals, organizations, and businesses interested in assisting the Township. A foundation or trust fund established with the interest in building and improving recreation can attract donations from citizens, businesses, clubs, and other foundations. Corporations, local businesses, private foundations, and other philanthropic organizations are excellent sources of financing for local programs. They may choose to sponsor various parks and recreation programs as well as provide significant funding for new projects. One such project, successful nationwide, is the “Adopt-A-Park” program in which a corporate group agrees to pay the operation and maintenance costs of a park for a specific period of time as a contribution to the local community. Tax advantages for corporate gifts to the community service agencies provide additional motivation for gifts. Also, corporations frequently provide funds for special projects or competitions. Individuals, families, or organizations may join the Recreation Program through the purchase of a yearly or lifetime membership. Such membership would provide special benefits, such as free entry to a facility or event, invitation to special events, periodic newsletters or a calendar of upcoming events, or possibly first-preference for picnic permits, etc. Establishing a regular line item in the Township Council Fund Budget is necessary for daily operation and maintenance of a recreation center.



Table 20 – Estimated Ten Year Budget for Park Operation & Maintenance and Revenues

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Insurance $1,600 $1,760 $1,936 $2,130 $2,343 $2,577 $2,834 $3,118 $3,430 $3,773 Prof. Membership (PRPS) $100 $110 $121 $133 $146 $161 $177 $195 $214 $2Office Su

36 pplies $400 $440 $484 $532 $586 $644 $709 $779 $857 $9

Phone $250 $275 $303 $333 $366 $403 $443 $487 $536 $5Public Relations $600 $660 $726 $799 $878 $966 $1,063 $1,169 $1,286 $1,4Training (PRPS) $350 $385 $424 $466 $512 $564 $620 $682 $750 $8

Subtotals $3,300 $3,630 $3,993 $4,392 $4,832 $5,315 $5,846 $6,431 $7,074 $7,781

Recreation

43 89 15 25

(1) $2,800 $3,080 $3,388 $3,727 $4,099 $4,509 $4,960 $5,456 $6,002 $6,602 Maintenance (1) $3,800 $4,180 $4,598 $5,058 $5,564 $6,120 $6,732 $7,405 $8,146 $8,960 Contracted Services $1,200 $1,320 $1,452 $1,597 $1,757 $1,933 $2,126 $2,338 $2,572 $2,830

Subtotals $7,800 $8,580 $9,438 $10,382 $11,420 $12,562 $13,818 $15,200 $16,720 $18,392

Concessions, Equipment $950 $1,045 $1,150 $1,264 $1,391 $1,530 $1,683 $1,851 $2,036 $2,240 Fuel, Lube, Equipment $2,850 $2,935 $3,029 $3,131 $3,244 $3,369 $3,506 $3,656 $3,822 $4,004 Tools/Minor Equipment $725 $798 $877 $965 $1,061 $1,168 $1,284 $1,413 $1,554 $1,710 Utilities $200 $220 $242 $266 $293 $322 $354 $390 $429 $4General Construction $3,995 $4,395 $4,834 $5,317 $5,849 $6,434 $7,077 $7,785 $8,564 $9,420

Subtotals $8,720 $9,392 $10,132 $10,944 $11,838 $12,823 $13,905 $15,095 $16,405 $17,845

Camps, Clinics, Events $750 $825 $908 $998 $1,098 $1,208 $1,329 $1,462 $1,608 $1,768Su

72

pplies $850 $935 $1,029 $1,131 $1,244 $1,369 $1,506 $1,656 $1,822 $2,004Costs $950 $1,045 $1,150 $1,264 $1,391 $1,530 $1,683 $1,851 $2,036 $2,240

Subtotals $2,550 $2,805 $3,086 $3,394 $3,733 $4,107 $4,517 $4,969 $5,466 $6,013

Equip. Maj. Purchase $12,500 $12,750 $13,025 $13,328 $13,600 $14,026 $14,429 $14,872 $15,359 $15,895 Facility (General) $12,750 $13,025 $13,328 $13,660 $14,026 $14,492 $14,872 $15,359 $15,895 $16,484 Site Maintenance/Repairs $2,950 $3,245 $3,570 $3,926 $4,319 $4,751 $5,226 $5,749 $6,324 $6,956 Equip. Capital Reserve $3,500 $3,850 $4,235 $4,659 $5,124 $5,637 $6,200 $6,821 $7,503 $8,253

Subtotals $31,700 $32,870 $34,158 $35,573 $37,069 $38,906 $40,728 $42,800 $45,080 $47,588 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $46,270 $48,697 $51,368 $54,303 $57,473 $61,150 $64,996 $69,295 $74,025 $79,227

TOTAL REVENUES $10,500 $11,550 $12,705 $13,976 $15,373 $16,910 $18,601 $20,462 $22,508 $24,758

Entrance Fees $2,000 $2,200 $2,420 $2,662 $2,928 $3,221 $3,543 $3,897 $4,287 $4,716 Season Permits $1,500 $1,650 $1,815 $1,997 $2,196 $2,416 $2,657 $2,923 $3,215 $3,537 Camps, Clinics, Events $3,100 $3,410 $3,751 $4,126 $4,539 $4,993 $5,492 $6,041 $6,645 $7,310 Concession Sales $3,900 $4,290 $4,719 $5,191 $5,710 $6,281 $6,909 $7,600 $8,360 $9,196

*Summer College Intern: Spring - Nature activities at parks, assist in preparation of summer special events; Summer - Recreation Program/Camp. Clinics/sportscamps with volunteers; Fall - Nature Program.

Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study for a Recreation Complex

A. ADMINISTRATION

B. PERSONNEL (Seasonal)

C. MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

D. PROGRAMMING

E. MAINTENANCE

F. REVENUES

Survey results revealed that parks, recreation, and open space contribute to Elizabeth Township’s high quality of life. Elizabeth Township residents enjoy green open spaces and recreation activities for all ages. This Feasibility Study identifies parks, recreation, and open space needs, acknowledges the interests of all residents, reflects the Township’s demographic trends, and provides a guide for future recreation to be administered efficiently. Over the next ten (10) years, residents and Elizabeth Township officials should support this system as the Township recreation efforts continue to be a defining feature of the community.



Recreation Open Space Recommendation As the Township continues to develop, the Township officials should consider a Township ordinance regarding the preservation of open space and setting aside land for recreation. In recent years it has become common practice across Pennsylvania for municipal governments to request that property be set aside for recreation when developers create plans for residential properties. Residential developments increase the need for local government to provide recreation spaces and services. A sample resolution would read as follows consideration and merits consideration of adoption by Township officials. A fee in lieu of property donation can go toward developing existing park land and implementing the master plan.

As a condition precedent to final approval of any subdivision or land development intended for residential use, except those of five or less dwelling units or lots, the developer shall dedicate for public use recreation open space meeting the design standards in the ordinance of this Chapter, or upon agreement with the Township, pay a recreation fee.

Recreation open space should meet, at a minimum, the following standards:

A. Minimum Size. 2,185 square feet per dwelling unit or lot.

B. Vehicular Access. Shall be easily and safely accessible from all areas of the development, have adequate ingress and egress including meeting applicable site distance and other standard requirements, and have a minimum of 250 feet of frontage on a public or proposed public street.

C. Location. Shall be centrally located within the development site, on one parcel of

land with no intervening land.

D. Size and Shape. Size and shape shall be suitable for development as a park and no single side of the land shall amount to more than 35 percent of the perimeter.

E. Maximum Finished Slope and Land Disturbance. The finished grade shall have a

slope of 4 percent or less.

F. Pedestrian Access. Shall be accessible to each dwelling unit in the development via pedestrian easement or dedicated right-of-way within which sidewalks shall be built by the developer prior to acceptance by the Township.

G. Utilities and Vegetation. Shall be in reasonable proximity to utilities including water,

sanitary sewer, and electric, and shall have established vegetation thereon.

H. Use Limitations. Shall be free from encumbrances or liens which would prevent, limit, or restrict its use in any way.



I. Wetlands. Shall not include areas defined as wetlands by either the Army Corps of

Engineers or the PADEP.

J. Floodplains. Shall not include any areas defined as floodplains including floodway and floodway fringe areas, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

K. Utility Easements. Shall not have more than 15 percent can be encumbered by utility

easements other than those servicing the parcel.

L. Timing of Dedication. Shall be deeded to the Township at the time of recording of the final plat. If a plat is developed and constructed in phases, the land proposed for dedication to the public shall be deeded to the Township together with the recording of the final plat containing the land being dedicated and shall be dedicated and deeded to the Township not later than the phase when the total cumulative percentage of lots or dwelling units approved for recording in the phases of the plat reaches 35 percent of the total lots or dwelling units in all phases of the plat or land development granted preliminary approval.

M. Conformity with Township Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Shall have all

land proposed for dedication as recreation open space and be suitable for the use intended and be located and designed in accordance with the recreation plan.

N. Modifications for Sites Less Than Five Acres. If the land to be dedicated to the

Township is less than five (5) acres, the Supervisors may waive any of the above criteria if such land fits within the Township’s Comprehensive Plan for linear parks and greenways.

Recreation Fees To offset recreation fees, the Township should enact a resolution to set park rental fees. Contents of a resolution are as follows:

A. The Supervisors should establish by resolution or ordinance a recreation fee schedule.

B. When a recreation fee is required, final approval of a final application shall be conditioned upon the execution of an agreement between the Township and the applicant, on a form provided by the Township, providing for payment of the recreation fee at the time of issuance of a building permit for development pursuant to the final plat as approved, or the applicant shall pay the recreation fees prior to release of the final plat for recording.

C. The Township shall establish the recreation fees fund. Recreation fees shall be deposited into the recreation fees fund. The recreation fees fund shall be used solely for the purpose of providing land and facilities for recreation uses in the Township.

D. Refunds. Upon request of any person who paid any fee under this Section, the



Township shall refund such a fee, plus interest accumulated thereon from the date of payment, if the Township had failed to utilize the fee paid for the purposes set forth in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code within three (3) years from the date such fee was paid. If the Township does not use the recreation fees to provide land and facilities for recreation use within three (3) years from the date of the recreation fees, then, upon receipt of a written request from the payer who paid the recreation fees, then, upon receipt of a written request from the payer who paid the recreation fees, the Township shall refund the recreation fees plus interest earned from the date of payment approved, or the applicant shall pay the recreation fees prior to release of the final plat for recording.

Park and Recreation Board The Supervisors should also consider forming a Township Park and Recreation Advisory Board. The Board would be a seven (7) member board with two (2) representatives from the Elizabeth-Forward School District. The Board would meet monthly, oversee park development, programs, assist with grants, etc. The Board would also assist as volunteers to help create programs, light maintenance, and encouraging park use through creative programs. The Board should become members of the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society which offers volunteer training and great assistance and guidance. Grant Funding Given the cost of park improvements and a limited tax base, acquiring grants will dictate how the park will develop over the next ten (10) years. Grants are limited, but are also an excellent funding opportunity to promote community stability and the quality of life in an area. Applying for federal and state grants to aid in completing the park will be vital to improving Elizabeth Township’s overall budget for the project and giving the Township the ability to create a recreation complex that is most desirable to its residents. There are many grants available for municipalities, like Redbank Township. The Community Conservation Partnerships Program is the grant funding available through the PADCNR. The Acquisition and Development Grants are:

“Municipalities are the only eligible applicants. The Department provides grant funding at a level not to exceed 50 percent of eligible costs except for Small Community Development types (see below). A Municipality may submit one application per project type per funding period. Projects include:

Acquisition – grants for the purchase of land for park, recreation and conservation purposes. Projects may include acquisition of land for new areas, in holdings or expansion of existing sites.

Park Rehabilitation and Development – grants for the rehabilitation of existing parks, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and development of new park and recreation areas.”



The Department of Community and Economic Development may be an excellent governmental entity to apply for grants. Two such grant programs advertised within this sector are the Community Revitalization Program (CRP) and the Local Municipal Resources and Development Program (LMRDP). Both are grants that are available for municipalities and non-profit organizations. There are multiple purposes for funding opportunities, one being recreation for both of them. The amount received via the CRP varies; typical grants via the LMRDP are between $5,000 and $25,000. Other Recommendations Howell Property – Development of a master Site Plan as a natural park is needed to determine the future development of this approximately 90 acre area of wooded land. Round Hill Park – Contains 1,100 acres and is not used intensely. The County needs to explore the potential of joint use facilities, especially the community building near the park office.


feasibility study report

Technology