Section I.     Approved Minutes for a Special Meeting of

The Centre Regional Recreation Authority

1.       Ms. Mascolo called the special meeting of the CRRA to order at 12:15 PM with the following persons present (5 of 6):

          • Ms. Sue Mascolo, Chair    Ferg. Twp.     • Mr. Roy Harpster, Vice-Chair      Harris Twp.

          • Ms. Kathy Matason, Sec.  College Twp.  • Ms. Donna Conway, Treas. SC Borough

          • Mr. Chris Hurley              Patton Twp.

2.       Welch Pool Renewal: Shared Parking and Access Items

Ms. Mascolo related that as a result of a joint committee meeting on January 20, ten “Principles of Agreement” were prepared which will be the basis of the proposed agreements. If approved by the Authority and the School Board, the respective Solicitors would be asked to prepare formal agreements for action. The Board of School Directors met to take action on the principles on Jan. 26. Based on that approval, approval by the Authority was requested so the Authority Solicitor can prepare a draft agreement for joint action. Mr. Hurley asked some questions of Mr. Woodhead to clarify the information so far:

1) Is there a concern that CRPR does not own the land the Welch Pool is on, and if so, at what point of planning over the last several years has the Authority accepted this? Mr. Woodhead related that it has always been a concern of whether we owned the land or not. As far as the Welch pool staying on the same site, that began with the Feasibility Study that was done in 2002. That study recommended an alternate site be selected. The cost without the land acquisition was estimated to be over $7 million, which was thought to be too much. Then the Authority and the COG General Forum approved an Extended Feasibility Study in 2004 which resulted in a recommendation that was accepted by the Authority to proceed with renewal of Welch Pool at the current location.

2) Mr. Hurley asked if, at some point, the Authority was comfortable with moving ahead using the Welch site even though it was on leased land? They accepted the second study? Mr. Woodhead indicated that in August 2004 the Authority officially approved it.

3) Mr. Hurley asked the staff position on the shared parking agreement and what does the staff recommend? Mr. Woodhead replied that staff was responsible for the wording on the ten principles of agreement. It was then sent to the school district and to the Solicitor for comment. Mr. Woodhead indicated that he could speak for Mr. Todd Roth that staff is satisfied with the agreement.

4) Mr. Hurley then asked if the Authority would have another opportunity to approve the legal and binding documents after the Solicitor and School District have submitted their changes? Mr. Woodhead stated that absolutely, the Authority would have to approve the documents before they are signed.

5) Mr. Hurley asked if the area experienced a lot of growth and the pool needed to expand, would there be room for that expansion on this site? Mr. Woodhead related that for now, we are going to make the most of the area available on this site, then, if in the future the need arises, we would look for a location for a third pool.

4) Mr. Hurley asked if there would be an opportunity to look at other sites if the need arises. Mr. Woodhead answered yes.

Mr. Mascolo asked if the school district approved the ten principles at their meeting last night (January 26, 2009). The answer was yes.

Ms. Conway was really dismayed that $95,000 (the estimated cost for Authority funding of the ADA spaces and the drop-off area) could derail the project after all the work and effort that has been given. She thinks that if this project is put on hold it will be many years before the new pool would actually be built. She does not think that it would only be on hold one year. She also related that she thought paying for the parking was our responsibility not the school districts and that we should stay within the original amount for the pool of $5.4 million.

                    Mr. Hurley indicated that the time and funds expended on this project should not be wasted.

Mr. Harpster related that Mr. Hurley was correct. At one time, they were going to try to build one on another site off Westerly Parkway but decided it would be cheaper to keep the pool at the current Welch site.

Mr. Hurley moved that the Authority approve the principles of agreement and that we move forward sending it to the Solicitor, Betsy Dupuis. Ms. Conway seconded. All in favor.

3.       Welch Pool Renewal: Master Site Plan

Mr. Woodhead asked the Authority to consider a “Conditional Approval” pending the adoption of the final shared parking agreement, on the proposed Welch Pool Master Site Plan, so that staff and the consultants could proceed with the detailed planning for the Welch Pool Renewal. Mr. Harpster moved that the Authority give conditional approval of the proposed Welch Pool Master Site Plan, pending the adoption of the final shared parking agreement. Ms. Conway seconded. Before the vote, Mr. Klees asked if we could add a number of additional parking spaces to the plan as an alternate? Mr. Mascolo asked if the Authority could pay for the original parking that was suggested. Discussion followed. Mr. Hurley said that the public who spoke at the school board meeting spoke in favor of not infringing on the green space. Mr. Hurley agrees with Mr. Klees about asking for school authorization to add one strip of additional parking. All of the Authority members were in favor of the motion.

4.       Adjournment of the CRRA portion of the meeting.

Section II.    Summary for the meeting of the

Regional Park Planning Committee

1.       Mr. Klees called the Regional Park Planning Committee to order after the special meeting of the Centre Regional Recreation Authority with the following persons present:

                    - The COG Ad Hoc Regional Park Committee

          Mr. Dan Klees          College Township     Mr. Dick Mascolo                 Ferguson Township

          Mr. Cliff Warner        Harris Township       Mr. James Rosenberger       State College Borough

          Mr. Doug Erickson Patton Township for Jeff Luck 

                    - The CRPR Board / Authority

          Ms. Sue Mascolo       Ferguson Township   Mr. Hurley                          Patton Township

          Mr. Roy Harpster      Harris Township       Ms. Conway                       State College Borough

                    - Jim Pashek & Dan Jones, Landscape Architects

                    - Municipal / Regional Staff (non-voting)

          Mr. Adam Brumbaugh         Mgr. College Township        Ms. Amy Farkas        Mgr. Harris Township

          Mr. Mark Kunkle                 Mgr. Ferguson Township      Mr. James Steff        COG Executive Dir.

          Mr. Ronald Woodhead         Dir. CRRA/CRPR                  Mr. Greg Roth          Park Supervisor

          Mr. Todd Roth          Aquatics Supervisor                      Ms. Diane Ishler       Office Manager

          Mr. Jeff Hall             Rec Supervisor - Sports & Fitness

2.       The Meeting Summary from December 10, 2008, was unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Warner and a second by Mr. Hurley.

Balance of Meeting c/o Pashek Associates

3.       Needs Analysis and Field Capacity

          Mr. Pashek revisited where we have been so far. (As an aside, he shared that he learned to swim at Welch Pool). We will have six study committee meetings, this is the fifth. There will be three public meetings; one has taken place, there is one on Feb 10, 2009, and there will be one more after that to present the final report. They will come back to the Study Committee with cost estimates. Wrap up the narrative after the final public meeting. The final presentation will be sometime in May or June.

          Mr. Pashek reviewed the five concepts that were presented at the previous committee meeting, but we still needed more insight as to what would be right for the Oak Hall parklands and how many fields are needed for each sport. A Sports Field Analysis memorandum was distributed by Mr. Pashek showing the additional analysis that was completed: starting with the 2002 CRPR Board memo that stated how many facilities were needed; then the facility standards that NRPA developed in 1988 (and amended), a time slot analysis, the sports group requests and the consultant’s recommendations. The number of participants, age groups, the length of practices, etc. were also included in the analysis so you can determine the time slots required. Mr. Klees asked about footnote 9 on the memo. Mr. Pashek will find out and let everyone know. Mr. Mascolo asked what a Challenger Field was as he had never heard that mentioned before. It is a smaller field that usually has a synthetic field for use by special populations. Mr. Mascolo asked if this suggestion came from one of the sports groups. Mr. Hall indicated that Little League had requested this type of field. Mr. Woodhead reminded everyone that just because it was requested does not mean it should go into the regional parks. For example, this type of field could go into Haymarket Park, which is next to the Little League complex.

          Mr. Jones provided additional background which confirmed the conclusion that these are to be great athletic (active recreation) parks with other amenities included - rather than great community parks with a few fields. He indicated that Oak Hall has one primary area that is good for fields. They tested the field area for rock depths to determine what they would need to do to provide more level playing fields. The back hoe dug holes in 25 test pits and the results indicated that they would take five feet from one place and fill five feet in another - these are considered good results. Mr. Jones presented a Capacity Diagram of the Whitehall Road Parklands, 75 acres, with the maximum fields that would fit on this site. The diagram is not intended to serve as a master plan or layout plan for that site. The Whitehall Road Parkland is flatter and has space for many fields.

4.       Draft Master Plan discussion

          Mr. Jones reviewed the decisions that have been made: 1) use the existing road and intersection 2) keep the rental house 3) the priority use is athletic fields 4) retain the natural zones due to the steep incline 5) restrooms and other complimentary uses in the center 6) use the septic / stormwater areas that have been identified. He then indicated what is being proposed: 1) primary use three softball fields 2) an informal field 3) parking for 160 cars 4) the secondary uses have some flexibility 5) a core section that contains the restrooms, playground, views, pavilion 6) a trail system including a perimeter path 7) a maintenance facility next to where the rental house and bypass 8) septic on left side of the core where the most suitable soil is located. There was a question about the road (it was originally a township road). Some of those present thought there should be a bike path others were not in favor of a bike path. Mr. Klees requested that more thought be included in the design so that shoulders of the park road can be used for parking. Other possibilities for the secondary uses are: 1) court games (basketball, tennis) 2) sledding 3) dog park 4) community gardens 5) winter sports. Mr. Jones asked that there be agreement on the basic layout; the goal is to endorse the primary list and provide some input as to the secondary uses.

          In answer to a question, Mr. Jones related that the small softball field is counted as a multi-purpose field because of the topography; there is not enough room there for an adult softball field w/fence. It is an area that could also be scheduled as a model airport. Mr. Hurley indicated that the walking trails could become fitness courses. Mr. Jones related that the woods were really thick and contained a lot of invasive plants and trees. Mr. Warner indicated that if ramps are installed due to the topography that low steps should also be put in. He also suggested paths that connect and go different ways so the walker can choose which way to go. Mr. Harpster suggested that the buffer by the softball fields be taken out. Mr. Jones indicated that there is a lot of sun and wind on this site and the buffers offer some protection and shade. He related that we don’t want to crowd the fields.

          The primary program here would be softball. Mr. Brumbaugh asked about lights; he wondered if this field would be able to have lights. Mr. Jones replied that the analysis was based on all day-lighted fields. Mr. Erickson said to talk to Musco Inc. about lighting for energy efficient system that casts very little off-target light. He also said to watch fields that are rectangular since they can create a lot of spillover light. Mr. Harpster related there is only one lighted field (Hess) and tournaments like lighted fields. Mr. Jones related that it is not necessary to make a commitment for field lighting now, but Mr. Pashek added that it is necessary to know if lights will be planned, even if later in the development.

          Mr. Klees stated that he needs to be prepared to defend what will be placed in this park and the fact that it doesn’t have a variety of fields. Mr. Pashek indicated that the planners are hearing about the need for softball tournament facilities at the public meetings. Related to installing empty conduit for future lighting, Mr. Pashek related that DCNR will not assist with funding unless it is fully completed and operational.

5.       Plan for Community Meeting to present the draft Master Site Plan on Tues., February 10.

          Mr. Pashek indicated that the Public Meeting would take the same steps as this planning meeting. One of the questions being asked is how long before Whitehall Road will be developed? Mr. Klees said that some are saying do both Oak Hall and Whitehall at the same time; maybe pay as you go. Ms. Mascolo said that it takes approximately $200,000 - $250,000 to create a field. Mr. Klees says there are two thoughts: one is pay as you go and the other is borrow the money. Ms. Conway asked if it would be better to start Whitehall first since it has more fields and would keep sports happy? Mr. Brumbaugh suggested the best that could be done was to give a firm time table to move to the other park. He does not think it is practical to try to do both parks at the same time. Mr. Jones related that according to the analysis the biggest need is in adult softball. Mr. Pashek suggested that some organizations may be able to help with funding (example soccer).

          - Location: Mt. Nittany Middle School or a municipal building?

          There was discussion about where the public meeting should be held. If it was not going to be held at the Mt. Nittany Middle School, the majority opinion was that it be held at a municipal building.

          The committee members wanted to take this information back to their municipalities for information. Mr. Klees indicated everyone should do that. The planning for Oak Hall will still proceed.

          Ms. Conway stated she thought it was unrealistic to have a dog park but other members were enthusiastic about a dog park.

          Mr. Steff was concerned with the small field and wondered why it could not be expanded into a large field. The answer was there was not sufficient room and the topography would require more aggressive development.

6.       Next Steps / Next Meeting

          Mr. Woodhead will let everyone know about when and where the next meeting will be held.

7.       Adjournment

          Mr. Rosenberger offered thanks to the presenters and committee and suggested an adjournment.