Worth Township Planning Commissionfor Submittal to Worth Township Board of Supervisors with the Assistance of Lavdplaiv, Lnc and the Centre County Planning Oflce

Home , Penn State Altoona, University Park Airport, WALY, WBLF, WFBG, WFGY

Office Copy -- Do Not Remove

Prepared by the Worth Township Planning Commissionfor submittal to Worth Township Board of Supervisors with the assistance of LAVDPLAiV, lNC and the Centre County Planning Oflce. The preparation of this report was financed in part by grantsfrom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Communiv and Economic Development and the Centre County Local Planning Assistance Program.

Adopted by the Worth Township Board of Supervisors August 5,1999 WORTH TOWNSHIP

CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Adopted

August 5, 7999

Prepared by the

WORTH TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

and Adopted by the

WORTH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

with the Assistance of

LANDPLAN, INC. 1124 Locust Street, Montoursville, PA 17754 i

WORTH TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table of Contents

Paae

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A . What is a Comprehensive Plan? ...... 1-1 B. Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan ...... 1-2 C . Authority for Comprehensive Planning ...... 1-2 D. Comprehensive Planning Process ...... 1-4 E. Legal Status of Comprehensive Plans ...... 1-5

CHAPTER 2

MUNICIPAL HISTORY & GENERAL BACKGROUND

A . History of Centre County ...... 11-1 B. History of Worth Township ...... 11-2 C . Location of Worth Township in Regional Setting ...... 11-7 D. Governmental Organization ...... 11-9

CHAPTER 3

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

A . Past Growth Trends ...... 111-1 B. Current Population Profile ...... 111-3

1. Age Distribution ...... 111-7 2 . Gender and Race Distributions ...... Ill-IO 3. Household and Family Characteristics ...... 111-1 0

C . Population Projections ...... 111-1 5 D. Implications for the Development Plan ...... 111-1 8

I CHAPTER 4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Paae

A . Regional Economy ...... iv-1

1. Background ...... 1v-1 2. Economic Development Organizations ...... 1v-2 3. Industrial Development Facilities ...... 1v-4 4 . Tourism ...... 1v-5

B. Local Economy ...... iv-5 C . Employment/Unemployment/lncome ...... 1v-6 1. Employment/Unemployment ...... 1v-6 2. General Income Characteristics ...... 1v-6

D. Labor Force ...... 1v-1 1

1. Characteristics of the Labor Force ...... 1v-14 2. Education Levels ...... 1v-19

E. Employment and Economic Forecasts ...... 1v-24 F. Fiscal Analysis ...... 1v-27

1. Taxes and Other Revenues ...... 1v-27 2 . Cash & Investments ...... 1v-28 3 . Expenditures ...... 1v-29 4 . Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures ...... 1v-29 5. Tax Base ...... 1v-32

CHAPTER 5

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES i A . Government FaciI it ies ...... V- 1 ! 1. Township Government ...... V-1 2. County Government ...... V-2

B. Police and Fire Protection ...... V-3 J

1. Police Protection ...... V-3 1 2. Fire Protection ...... V-5 . _J

(Continued on Next Page)

ii Paae

C . Emergency Medical Services ...... V-9 D. Health Care ...... V-10

1. Medical Services ...... V-10 2 . Nursing Homes/Retirement Centers ...... V-10

I: E. Social and Human Services ...... V-11 I F. Educational Facilities ...... V-13 1: 1. Public Schools (K through 12) ...... V-14 I1 I 2 . Vocationalflechnical Education ...... V-17 i, 3. Private Schools ...... V-18 4 . Post-Secondary Educational Opportunities ...... V-19 5 . Libraries ...... V-20

G. Parks. Recreational Facilities. and Cultural. Religious & Social Activities ...... V-20

I' 1. Local Parks ...... V-20 2. State Parks. Forests & Game Lands ...... V-21 3. Campgrounds ...... V-22

I. 4 . Other Recreation ...... V-23 .. 5 . Festivals and Annual Events ...... V-23 '1 Religious Facilities V-24 I 6 ...... 7. Museums. Historical Sites. Cultural Features & Unique Natural Features ...... V-24

CHAPTER 6

PUBLIC UTILITIES ;i

i A . Water Supply ...... v1-1 i B. Sewage Collection and Disposal ...... v1-3 C . Stormwater Management/Storm Sewer Facilities ...... v1-5 i i D. Solid Waste Management ...... v1-6 ! E. Electric and Natural Gas Service ...... v1-7 F. Telephone Services ...... :...... v1-7 i G . Media Services ...... v1-8 1) 1. Newspaper Coverage ...... v1-8 2 . Television ...... v1-8 3. Radio ...... v1-8 .f I .i ... iii ..J CHAPTER 4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Regional Economy ...... IV-1

1. Background ...... IV-1 2. Economic Development Organizations ...... IV-2 3. Industrial Development Facilities- ...... IV-4 4. Tourism ...... IV-5

6. Local Economy ...... IV-5 C. Employment/Unemployment/lncome ...... IV-6

1. Employment/Unemployment ...... IV-6 2. General Income Characteristics ...... IV-6

D. Labor Force ...... IV-11

1. Characteristics of the Labor Force ...... IV-14 2. Education Levels ...... IV-19

E. Employment and Economic Forecasts ...... IV-24 F. Fiscal Analysis ...... IV-27

1. Taxes and Other Revenues ...... IV-2-7- 2. Cash & Investments ...... IV-28 3. Expenditures ...... IV-29 4. Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures ...... IV-29 5. Tax Base ...... IV-32

CHAPTER 5

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

A. Government Facilities ...... V-1

1. Township Government ...... V-1 2. County Government ...... V-2

B. Police and Fire Protection ...... V-3 .j

1. Police Protection ...... V-3

2. Fire Protection ...... V-5 J

(Continued on Next Page)

. .J Page

C . Emergency Medical Services ...... V-9 D . Health Care ...... V-10

1. Medical Services ...... V-IO 2 . Nursing Homes/Retirement Centers ...... V-10

E. Social and Human Services ...... V-11 F. Educational Facilities ...... V-13

1. Public Schools (K through 12) ...... V-14 2 . Vocational/Technical Education ...... V-17 3 . Private Schools ...... V-18 4 . Post-Secondary Educational Opportunities ...... V-19 5 . Libraries ...... V-20

G. Parks. Recreational Facilities. and Cultural. Religious & Social Activities ...... V-20

1. Local Parks ...... V-20 2 . State Parks. Forests & Game Lands ...... V-21 3 . Campgrounds ...... V-22 4 . Other Recreation ...... V-23 5 . Festivals and Annual Events ...... V-23 6 . Religious Facilities ...... V-24 7 . Museums. Historical Sites. Cultural Features & Unique Natural Features ...... V-24

CHAPTER 6

PUBLlC UTI LIT1ES

A . Water Supply ...... v1-1 B. Sewage Collection and Disposal ...... v1-3 C . Stormwater Management/Storm Sewer Facilities ...... v1-5 D . Solid Waste Management ...... v1-6 E. Electric and Natural Gas'Service ...... v1-7 F. Telephone Services ...... v1-7 G. Media Services ...... v1-8

1. Newspaper Coverage ...... v1-8 2 . Television ...... V1-8 3. Radio ...... v1-8

iii CHAPTER 7

HOUSING Paae

A . Housing Profile ...... vii-1

1. General Housing Characteristics ...... vii-1 2 . Occupancy and Ownership ...... v11-2 3. Age and Condition of Housing Units ...... Vll-10 4 . Housing Values ...... VII-IO 5 . Housing Costs ...... Vll-14

6 . Housing Needs Assessment ...... Vll-19 1. Availability ...... VII-19 2 .. Affordability ...... Vll-24

C . Countywide Housing Programs & Initiatives ...... Vll-27 D. Building Requirements ...... ;...... Vll-29

CHAPTER 8

TRANSPORTATION

A . Road & Highway Transportation Network ...... VIII-1

1. Inventory ...... VIII-1 2. Functional Classification ...... VIII-1 .. 3. Ownership ...... Vlll-5 4 . Physical Conditions ...... Vlll-6 5 . Township Bridges ...... Vlll-8 6 . General Maintenance Responsibilities ...... Vlll-9

6 . Traffic Analysis ...... v11 1-1 1

1. Circulation Patterns ...... VIII-11 I 2 . Transportation Issues ...... VIII-11 3 . Future Transportation Plans and Projects ...... VIII-14 C . Public Transit/Transportation ...... V111-15 D. Other Forms of Transportation ...... VIll-19

1. Rail Services ...... Vlll-19 2 . Bus Service ...... Vlll-21 3. Air Transportation ...... Vlll-21

iv CHAPTER 9

LAND USE Paae

A . Physical Features ...... ix-1

1. Physiography ...... 1x-1 2. Geology ...... 1x-2 3. Topography ...... 1x-5 4 . Soils ...... 1x-7 5 . Floodplains and Wetlands ...... IX-IO 6; Other Natural Resources ...... 1x-1 1

B. Existing Land Uses ...... 1x-11

1. Land Use Survey ...... 1x-12 2. Types and Acreages of Land Uses ...... 1x-15

CHAPTER 10

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

I A . Statement of Community Development Objectives ...... x-1 6 . Development Strengths and Limitations ...... x-1 1. Community Strengths ...... X-2 2. Community Limitations ...... X-4

C . General Development Goals and Objectives ...... X-8

1. Community Conservation & Aesthetics ...... X-8 2 . Land Use & Land Use Controls ...... X-9 3 . Environmental Protection ...... X-10 4 . Economic Development & Commerce ...... X-11 5 . Historic Preservation ...... X-12 6 . Housing ...... X-12 7 . Transportation ...... X-12 8. Community Facilities and Services ...... X-13 9 . Intergovernmental Cooperation ...... X-14

V ,

CHAPTER 11

DEVELOPMENT PLANS Paae

A. Land Use Plan ...... XI-1 1. General Growth Policies & Recommendations ...... XI-1 2. Future Growth Concepts or Plan Implications ...... XI-7 3. Future Land Use Recommendations ...... XI-9

B. Housing Plan ...... XI-1 1 C. Transportation Plan ...... XI-13

1. General Growth Policies & Recommendations ...... XI-13 2. Specific Transportation Recommendations ...... XI-14

D. Community Facilities and Utilities Plan ...... XI-16 E. Effect on Adjacent Municipalities ...... XI-19 F. Interrelationship of Plan Components ...... XI-21

I ! CHAPTER 12 i

. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

A. Land Use Control Regulation Recommendations ...... XII-1 B. Priorities and Implementation Schedule ...... Xll-2

I. Short-Term Strategies with Limited Budget Impact ...... Xll-3 2. Short-Term Strategies with Budget Impact ...... Xll-7 3. Long-Term Strategies with Limited Budget Impact ...... Xll-9 4. Long-Term Strategies with Budget Impact ...... XII-11 i C. Project Funding Options and Assessments ...... XII-13 ;

RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT (Township Planning Commission) . XIII-1 RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION (Township Supervisors) ...... XllI-2

vi APPENDICES Paae

Appendix A. Public Opinion Survey ...... A-1

* Survey Questionnaire * Datasummary * Survey Report & Summary

Appendix 6. industrial Operations ...... B-1 I' * Major Centre County Industries * Regionally Located Industries

Appendix C. Worth Township Audit Report Summaries ...... C-1

* 1994 * 1995 * 1996 * 1997

Appendix D. Plan Presentation and Adoption Process ...... D-I.

* Newspaper Articles - Preserving Worth in the Face of Change - Worth Township Gets $8,700 Grant - No Time to Lose to Enact Worth's Plan - Worth Township Residents Back Map of Area's Growth

* Township Planning Commission Public Meeting Minutes * Township Supervisors' Public Hearing Meeting Agenda and Minutes

vii LISTING OF TABLES AND FIGURES Paae

Table 1. Population (Worth Township, Centre County & PA) - 1940 through 1990 ...... 111-2 Table 2. Population Density (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1940 through 1990 ...... 111-4 Table 3. Population Growth (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1950 through 1990 ...... 111-5 Table 4. Population Density Comparisons (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1960 through 1990 ...... 111-6 Table 5. Age Distribution (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... 111-8 Table 6. Age Group Comparisons (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... 111-9 Table 7. Gender & Race Distribution (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... 111-1 1 Table 8. Gender & Race Distribution (PA) - 1980 & 1990 ...... 111-12 Table 9. Household & Family Characteristics (Worth Township & ‘, Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... 111-1 3 Table 10. Population Projections (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1990 through 2020 ...... 111-1 6

Table 11. Population Projections (Worth Township) - 1990 through i 2020 ...... 111-1 7

Table 12. Top 20 Centre County Employers - 1998 ...... -. IV-3 Table 13. Commercial Land Uses (Worth Townshk) - 1998 ...... IV-7 Table 14. Per Capita Income Characteristics (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, Centre County, & PA) - 1980 & 1990 ...... IV-9 Table 15. General Income Characteristics (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 ti 1990 ...... IV-10 Table 16. Annual Household Income Characteristics (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... IV-12 Table 17. Poverty Status By Age (Worth Township & Centre County) - I 1980 & 1990 ...... IV-13 Table 18. Employed Civilian Labor Force, By Industry (Worth Town- ship & Centre County) - 1990 ...... IV-16 Table 19. Employed Civilian Labor Force, By Occupation (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1990 ...... IV-17 Table 20. Labor Force Classifications & Gender of Workers (Worth Township &. Centre County) - 1990’...... IV-18 Table 21. Employment Status, By Gender of Workers (Worth Township ? I & Centre County) - 1990 ...... IV-20 .i Table 22. Families in Labor Force With Children Under Age 6 (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1990 ...... IV-21 Table 23. Families in Labor Force With Children Age 6-17 (Worth f Township & Centre County) - 1990 ...... IV-22

(Continued on Next Page)

viii ... I Paae

Table 24. Place o \ ‘ork (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 990 ...... IV-23 Table 25. Education Levels (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... IV-25 Table 26. Education Levels (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 .... IV-26 Table 27. Major Revenues (Worth Township) - 1995-1997 ...... IV-28 Table 28. Cash & Investments, By Fund (Worth Township) - 1995-1997 .... IV-29 Table 29. Major Expenditures (Worth Township) - 1995-1997 ...... IV-30 Table 30. Comparison of Revenues & Expenditures (Worth Township) - 1995-1997 ...... IV-31 Table 31. Revenues & Expenditures Per Capita (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1994 & 1995 ...... IV-33 Table 32. Taxes Per Capita (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1994 & 1995 ...... IV-34 Table 33. Assessed Property Values & Millage Rates (Worth Town- ship) - 1993-1997 ...... IV-35 Table 34. PA State Police Incident Reports (Worth Township & Port Matilda Borough) - 1997 ...... V-6 Table 35. Fire & Motor Vehicle Accidents (Port Matilda Fire Company Service Area) - 1997 ...... v-9 Table 36. Public School Enrollment (Bald Eagle Area School District) - 1996 through 1998 ...... V-16 Table 37. Public & Private School Enrollments (Bald Eagle Area School District) - 1990 ...... v-19 Table 38. Water Supply, By Number of Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VI-2 Table 39. Sewerage Service, By Number of Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VI -4 Table 40. Total Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1980 to 1997 ...... VI 1-2 Table 41. Housing Types, By Number of Units (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... VI 1-3 Table 42. Housing Unit Occupancy (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1980 & 1990 ...... VI 1-5 Table 43. Tenure of Owner-Occupied Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VI 1-7 Table 44. Tenure of Renter-Occupied Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VI 1-8 Table 45. Rooms Per Housing Unit (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VI 1-9 Table 46. Home Heating Fuels (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VII-1 Table 47. Age of Housing Units (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1997 ...... Vll-12

(Continued on Next Page)

ix Page

Table 48. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units (Worth Township & Centre County) - 1990 ...... VII-13 Table 49. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 ...... VII-15 Table 50. Residential Real Estate Transfers (Upper Bald Eagle Plan- ning Region) - 1990 through 1996 ...... VII-16 Table 51. Home Owner & Renter Housing Costs (Worth Township, Centre County, & PA) - 1990 ...... VII-17 Table 52. Median Monthly Contract Rent (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1980 & 1990 ...... VII-18 Table 53. Subdivision Plans & Lots Created (Upper Bald Eagle Plan- ning Region & Centre County) - 1978 & 1979 ...... Vll-20 Table 54. Subdivision Plans & Lots Created (Upper Bald Eagle Plan- ning Region & Centre County) - 1980 through 1989 ...... Vll-21 Table 55. Subdivision Plans & Lots Created (Upper Bald Eagle Plan- ning Region & Centre County) - 1990 through 1997 ...... Vll-22 Figure 1. Number of Recorded Plot Plans (Centre County) - 1977 through 1997 ...... Vll-23 Table 56. Single Family Home Construction Costs (Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region) - 1990 through 1997 ...... Vll-26 Table 57. New Housing Units (Worth Township) - 1990 through 1997 ...... Vll-26 Table 58. Existing Single Family Home Sales Value (Worth Township, Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, & Centre County) - 1990 through 1997 ...... VI!-27 Figure 2. County & Municipal Planning Controls - 1998 ...... Vll-30 Table 59. Roadway Inventory (Worth Township) - 1998 ...... Vlll-2 Table 60. Roadway Functional Classifications (Worth Township) - 1998 ..... Vlll-4 Table 61. Roadway Surface Conditions (Worth Township) - 1998 ...... VIll-6 Table 62. Road Improvement Projects (Worth Township) - 1993 through 1998 ...... Vlll-10 Table 63. PADOT Highway & Bridge Projects/l2 Year Program (Worth Township & Vicinity) - 1997-2008 ...... VI1 I- 16 Table 64. PADOT Centre County Road Improvement Projects (Worth Township & Vicinity)- Fiscal Year 1999-2000 ...... Vlll-18 Table 65. Percent of Slope (Worth Township) ...... IX-6 Table 66. Existing Land Uses (Worth Township) - 1998 ...... IX-15 Table 67. Comparison of Existing & Proposed Land Use Allocations (Worth Township) - 1998-2013 ...... XI-12 Table 68. Land Use Policies & Regulations (Adjacent Municipalities) - 1999 ...... XI-20 ,

X LISTING OF MAPS Paae

Map 1. Centre County Past & Present ...... 11-3 Map 2 . Centre County Municipalities & Planning Regions ...... 11-4 Map 3 . Worth Township Location ...... 11-8 Map 4 . Regional Setting (Centre County) ...... 11-9a Map 5 . Philipsburg State Police Service Area ...... v-4 Map 6 . Port Matilda Volunteer Fire & Ambulance Service Area .... v-7 Map 7 . Bald Eagle Area School District Service Area ...... V-15 Map 8 . Public Facilities (Worth Township) ...... V-26A Map 9 . Port Matilda Borough Water Works Service Area ...... v1-1 A Map 10. Port Matilda Borough Sewer System Service Area ...... v1-3a Map 11. Cable TV Service Area (Worth Township) ...... VI -8A Map 12. Transportation System (Worth Township) ...... Vlll-7A Map 13. Road Improvement Projects (Worth Township) . 1993-1998

13A Pipe Replacement & Culvert Repair ...... VI 11I- OA 13B Road Resurfacing ...... VIII-1OB 13C Grading & Widening ...... VIII-1oc

Map 14. Average Daily Traffic Flow (Worth Township) ...... VIII-11 A Map 15. Physiography (Centre County) ...... 1x-3 Map 16. Topography & Physiographic Provinces (Worth Township) ...... 1x-3a Map 17. Drainage Areas & Community Watersheds (Centre County) ...... 1x-4 Map 18. Watersheds & Water Quality (Worth Township) ...... 1x-4a Map 19. Geologic Formations (Worth Township) ...... 1x-5a Map 20 . Steep Slopes (Worth Township) ...... 1x-6a Map 21 . Generalized Soils (Worth Township) ...... 1x-7a Map 22 . Septic Tank Absorption Field Limitations (Worth Township) ...... 1x-8a Map 23 . Erodible Soils (Worth Township) ...... 1x-86 Map 24 . Agricultural Soils (Worth Township) ...... 1x-9a Map 25 . Agricultural Security Areas (Worth Township) ...... 1X-1OA Map 26 . Floodplains (Worth Township) ...... 1x-1OB Map 27 . Hydric Soils (Worth Township) ...... 1x-1oc Map 28 . Existing Land Uses (Worth Township) ...... IX- 16A Map 29 . Composite Development Limitations ...... x1-8a Map 30 . Future Land-Use Recommendations (Worth Township) ... XI-1OA Map 31. Future Transportation Improvement Projects (Worth Township) ...... x1-1 5A Map 32. Centre County Land-Use Recommendations (Worth Township) ...... XI-19A Map 33 . Land-Use Recommendations (Adjacent Municipalities) ..... x1-1 9B Map 34 . Existing Zoning (Adjacent Municipalities) ...... XI-20A

xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The twelve chapters of this Comprehensive Plan provide a written and graphic 1 description and analysis of current conditions, resources, and capabilities in Worth Township, as well as future growth policies, recommendations and strategies to address I identified concerns and manage the municipality's assets for the future. The Plan's intent I is to provide for future growth in the Township in a way which will preserve the municipality's highly valued rural atmosphere and quality of life. The Township Planning Commission, at the direction of the Township Supervisors, was given the primary responsibility for development of the Comprehensive Plan. In August 1997, Landplan, Inc., was selected to assist Township planners with the project. Work began in earnest in September of that year and has culminated with the development of this document. Prior to initiation of the process, a Public Opinion Survey was conducted by the Township, with assistance from the Centre County Planning Office, as a means of soliciting input from the citizens on various aspects of life in the municipality. (Preparation of the Plan was financed in part by grants from the PA Department of Community and Economic Development's Shared Municipal Services Program and from the Centre County Board of Commissioners' Local Planning Assistance Pilot Project.) i Although diverse in scope and content, the Plan's many elements are interrelated from beginning to end. The background chapters (Chapters 1-9) present and evaluate available resources and land-use activities in the Township; the goals (Chapter 10) establish the community's desires regarding the type, location and intensity of future development in the municipality; the objective statements (followingeach goal in Chapter IO) describe the intent or purpose of each goal; and the recommendations (Chapter 11) illustrate specific ways in which the goals may be achieved. Chapter 12 then identifies unique strategies which could be used to implement the recommendations and offers a timetable for their execution. In other words, the goal statements represent ''what' Township officials would like to see accomplished or occur in their municipality in the future; the objectives explain "why" each goal is important; the recommendations, "how" each goal might be accomplished; and the implementation strategies, When" the recommendations should be addressed.

The following paragraphs provide additional detail regarding each of the chapters of this Plan.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the planning process. The purpose of the comprehensive planning, as well as its benefits for the municipality are explored. The importance of public input in the process and the legal status and authority of such Plans is presented. In general, although the Plan provides a basis for the development of land use control regulations, the Plan itself is not an ordinance, but merely a set of guidelines to direct future municipal decisions.

A brief history of Centre County and Worth Township is provided in Chapter 2, as well as details describing the municipality's regional setting and its governmental organization.

xii I

Chapter 3 presents an analysis of the Township’s demographics. Census data examined in the Chapter shows that although the population of the community has fluctuated over the past 50 years, the municipality has experienced an overall population increase of 73.4% (or 300 persons) since 1940. Other Census figures in the Chapter reveal that even though the Township’s population aged from a median of 26.5 years in 1980 to 32.5 years in 1990, the municipality remains young, with the largest percentage of its residents (35.5%) between the ages of 25 and 44. Future population projections are also presented at the conclusion of this Chapter of the Plan.

An assessment of local and regional.economies is provided in Chapter 4. Major employers are listed and numerous tables are presented detailing characteristics and composition of the local labor force. Employment and income statistics are included, and education levels of the Township’s work force are examined. Forecasts of future employment and an analysis of the Township’s fiscal condition are also introduced. Chapters 5 and 6 present information on community facilities and services, and public utilities within Centre County and Worth Township. Government facilities, police protection, volunteer fire and ambulance services, health care, social services, educational facilities and opportunities, and parks, recreational, cultural and social activities are detailed in Chapter 5. Water supply, sewage facilities, electric service, as well as stormwater management, solid waste management, telephone service, and various media coverages are discussed in Chapter 6.

An assessment of the Township’s housing profile is presented in Chapter 7. This Chapter reveals that while 75.6% of the housing units in Worth Township were considered single family dwellings in 1990, this statistic actually represented a reduction-of 2.8% in-the number of single family homes in the Township in 1980. A greater number of residents are now living in mobile homes than during the 1980s. Other statistics indicate that the total number of residential units in Worth Township increased rather dramatically from 1970 to 1990 representing an overall increase of 56.3%. Housing occupancy and ownership characteristics, unit age and condition information, as well as overall housing costs, affordability issues, and availability are also explored in this Chapter. A brief housing needs assessment and an examination of county housing programs is also included. Chapter 8 examines the Township’s transportation network. The location and length of each roadway in the municipality is established, the functional classification and , surface condition of each is presented, and the condition of the Township’s bridges is assessed. Circulation and traffic patterns are analyzed and highway or transportation- related issues are examined. Anticipated highway projects in and around the Township 1 are listed and other forms of transportation, including public transportation, rail, bus and air services, are also discussed. The Township’s physical features, including its physiography, geology, topography, soils, floodplains, and wetlands, are examined in Chapter 9. The municipality’s existing land uses are also itemized and discussed. As indicated, the largest category of land use in Worth Township is forest and woodlands. Approximately 76% of the Township’s total acreage is included in this classification. Agriculture occupies another 12.6% of the overall area, while residential, transportation, and open space uses account for about 3%

xiii each.

Chapter 10 sets forth the Township’s goals and objectives. It identifies growth strengths and limitations for the municipality and presents goals and objectives regarding future municipal development.

General growth policies and recommendations for achieving the identified goals are detailed in Chapter 11, the Development Plan. Specific strategies are established for land use, housing, transportation, and community facilities and utilities. As part of the land use plan, specific areas of the Township are identified for each land use category and acreage allocations are calculated. And, future road improvement and bridge projects are set forth in the transportation plan.

Short and long term implementation priorities are presented in Chapter 12. In addition to setting forth a suggested timetable for addressing the Plan’s recommendations, responsibilities for addressing the strategies are assigned to the applicable municipal agency, group, personnel, individual or citizen’s committee. Various project funding options are detailed.

To assist the reader in visualizing the information presented, including existing and recommended future land uses, a total of 34 maps have been incorporated into the text of the Plan. They can be found located throughout the document, generally in proximity to the information which they illustrate.

Four appendices are also incorporated at the end of the document providing additional supplementary information for the reader. Included are appendices presenting the Public Opinion Survey and its results; a listing of Township industries; condensed audit reports for 1994, 1995, .I996, and 1997; and details of the Plan’s public presentation and adoption.

xiv CHAPTER 1 = INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 I: INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the potential impacts of the impending construction of US Route I- 99, a new four-lane U.S.Route 322 (also known as "Corridor O") between Interstate 80 and 1-99, and the interchange of these highways in Worth Township, the Township Supervisors decided that a Comprehensive Plan should be developed to help the Township and its citizens deal with these coming changes. A public opinion survey was conducted and a public meeting was held to confirm resident support of the project, and the Township Planning Commission was organized and assigned the primary responsibility for developing the planning document. The Plan's fundamental purpose is to establish guidelines or policies to help coordinate future growth and development in the Township. Through the evaluation of current resources, services and facilities, and the formulation of reasonable goals and objectives, a set of future growth recommendations or strategies will be identified to assist the municipality in accommodating change while preserving its rural character and its valued quality of life.

Without exception, every municipality will at some point undergo or experience change. While not designed to prevent change, local planning efforts can play an important role in guiding change in a positive direction and in a way which will protect the best interests of residents. It is hoped that this Plan and its recommendations will serve as a satisfactory guide for municipal decisions that will result in logical, harmonious future growth in Worth Township.

A. WHAT IS A COMPREHENSlVE PLAN ?

A Comprehensive Plan is an official public planning document, including text, charts, graphs and maps, adopted by a governing body as a policy guide to decisions regarding the physical development of a community over a 10- to 15-year period. It is a tool or mechanism through which a municipality identifies its goals and objectives for the future and establishes practical strategies to achieve those goals. A Plan provides a framework or foundation upon which municipal decisions relating to land use, housing, transportation, and community facilities and utilities, and other community-related issues, can be based.

"Planning" is often defined as an orderly process or activity through which a municipality attempts to deal with its present problems and situations, and provide for its future needs. Planning ahead (proactively rather than reactively addressing critical issues) is important, especially in smaller communities like Worth Township where financial resources are limited. Without a Comprehensive Plan, the forces of the market place will likely determine where and what sort of development takes place, rather than Township and regional needs or any sense of what the residents of the municipality would wish to protect or preserve. Conscientious comprehensive planning can help preserve a municipality that reflects the values and desires of its citizens for generations to come.

1-1 B. PURPOSE OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to provide guidance for the future actions of a municipality. Planning for future growth and development can be important for many reasons, including:

* Helping to control inevitable change by ensuring that such change is guided in a positive direction.

* Guiding and coordinating growth and development by encouraging the wise use of land and natural resources; ensuring the preservation of the best possible environment; anticipating future growth needs; and assuring acceptable future development and development patterns through the preparation of reasonable land-use control regulations.

* Improving governmental processes and functions by coordinating the activities of numerous municipal agencies; helping to prevent unnecessary delays and redundant spending; and simplifying decision-making activities.

* Helping a community meet its present and future financial obligations and can improve its chances for receiving state and/or federal project funding. (Funding is often given to municipalities that have anticipated their needs and established I local priorities through the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan.)

* Providing an opportunity for citizens of the community to have some input into shaping the future of their municipality.

When combined with zoning and subdivision regulations, a Comprehensive Plan can provide protection for special or "sacred" places, sensitive areas, historic landmarks and community resources, by managing, controlling, and guiding growth and development to the best-suited or most-appropriate locations. Everyone benefits from properly-managed development. Residents enjoy more convenient, efficient neighborhoods, a high quality natural environment, less congestion and, as a result, lower taxes. Business people enjoy more predictability knowing that their investments are located in appreciating markets. And, developers face less uncertainty, incur lower development costs and have the assurance that the environments around their developments will continue to be of high quality.

The basic control over land use is provided through zoning regulations. The design and layout of development is governed by subdivision regulations. Good planning is necessary to provide the rationale and vision to sustain both of these ordinances and to assure necessary state agency approvals and funding decisions. The development of a thorough Comprehensive Plan provides an opportunity for a municipality to broaden its focus and look at the impact of each of its decisions on the entire Township rather than just on the immediate affected site.

C. AUTHORITY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the legal authority to undertake the

1-2 preparation of a Comprehensive Plan, a municipal Zoning Ordinance and/or a local Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance is provided through the PA Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 of 1968, as amended by Act 170 of 1988 and subsequent revisions). This legislation sets forth an outline of what is required in such a Plan or Ordinance and how each document should be developed. The Planning Code's primary intent, purpose and scope is to ...

"protect and promote safety, health, and morals; to accomplish coordinated development; to provide for the general welfare by guiding and protecting amenity, convenience, future governmental, economic, practical, and social and cultural facilities, development and growth, as well as the improvement of governmental processes and functions; to guide uses of land and structures, type and location of streets, public grounds and other facilities; to promote the conservation of energy through the use of planning practices and to promote the effective utilization of renewable energy sources; and to permit municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen."

With these goals in mind, Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Ordinances have been prepared and adopted by many municipalities in Pennsylvania.

Until recently, there was little need for or interest in developing a local Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning Ordinance in Worth Township. Since the mid-1970s the Centre County Planning Commission had overseen proposed subdivisions and land developments in the Township through administration of the County's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. And, until recently, the County's participation in municipal land use issues seemed to provide enough protection. However, as the Township and its residents began to realize that County Subdivision regulations could not control the location or specific type of development occurring in their municipality, and as they began to anticipate potential impacts from 1-99, the value and necessity of local planning and regulation became more apparent. As a result, the Worth Township Supervisors authorized development of this Plan.

In June 1977, the Centre County Planning Commission adopted a Comprehen- sive Plan for Centre County entitled Direction for the Future: Guidelines for Decision Makinq. This document set forth goals and recommendations for managing growth, preservingthe quality of life, enhancing economic development, and protectingthe natural environment of one of the Commonwealth's fastest-growing counties. In June 1997, many of the Plan's goals, objectives, and policies were updated to reflect the changes and evolution that have occurred in the county in the past two decades.

While the County's Plan addresses future growth throughout Centre County, the existence of that Plan does not prevent Worth Township from preparing its own, more specific municipal Comprehensive Plan. In fact, local planning efforts are strongly encouraged by the Planning Code, as well as the County planning document.

A Comprehensive Plan must be based on guidelines established in the Municipalities Planning Code. A Plan must contain the following basic elements:

1-3 1. A statement of community development goals and objectives;

2. A land use plan, including provisions for the amount, intensity, character and timing of various land uses, and the preservation of special areas and uses;

3. A plan to meet the housing needs of present residents and to accommodate the needs of future residents;

4. A plan for the movement of people and goods;

5. A plan for community facilities and utilities;

6. A statement of the interrelationships among the various plan components;

7. A discussion of short- and long-range implementation strategies and their likely budgetary impact; and,

8. A statement indicating the relationship of the existing and proposed development of the municipality to contiguous municipalities and the region. In addition, a Comprehensive Plan mav include:

9. A plan for the reliable supply of water, considering the availability of current and future water resources, uses and limitations; and,

IO. A plan to promote energy conservation and the effective utilization of renewable energy sources. -

Once adopted, a municipality must use its Plan to accomplish its recommendations. The document should not, however, be considered inflexible or unchangeable. Conditions and circumstances do change and evolve over time, and the Township should review the document every few years to determine if it needs to be revised or adjusted to reflect new or previously unforeseen factors or developments.

D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS

The first step in the comprehensive planning process is to objectively analyze the municipality from a number of perspectives. A thorough review of existing conditions, facilities, services, and features is essential. Concerns, issues and problems must be identified and catalysts for and limitations to development determined. Fragile and special resource or environmentally sensitive areas must be located, including steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and prime farmlands. These features must be mapped so they 1 can be considered during the development of the municipality’s land use policies and .2I implementing regulations.

Growth pressures must be identified and addressed and a response incorporated into the Plan’s land-use recommendations. The land-use objectives must consider the community’s environmental limits to development, as well as public opinion toward future

1-4 growth.

A specific set of goals and objectives aimed at guiding future development must then be developed, and recommendations intended to achieve the desired results must be established. Ultimately, the recommendations need to be molded into implementation strategies which will set forth a schedule for both short- and long-term achievement of the identified goals.

Citizen input and participation are critical elements of the comprehensive planning process. Good planning involves citizens, not just planners and officials, and attempts to establish a consensus of opinions. To obtain input from the citizens of Worth Township for this Plan, the Centre County Planning Office, on behalf of the Worth Township Board of Supervisors, developed and distributed a Citizen Survey to 368 tax-paying households in the municipality in early 1997. The Survey questionnaire asked for Township residents’ opinions on 1) general problems facing the Township; 2) future growth; 3) kinds of development; and 4) planning goals. A total of 124 survey forms were returned, representing more than one-third of the Township’s households. (A copy of the Survey and a Report of its results, also prepared by the Centre County Planning Office, are included in Appendix A of this document.)

An earlier survey of public opinion had been conducted by Centre County government in 1995. Its purpose was to obtain information on County residents’ evaluations of their current quality of life and their priorities for the future. A proportional sample of county residents were randomly selected using occupational tax assessment lists. Questionnaires were mailed to 44 households in Worth Township. Twenty-six of those selected units responded with completed surveys, representing approximately 9% of the Township’s total households. (A copy of the County Planning Office-prepared findings from this survey relative to Worth Township, entitled Worth Townshio -- A Profile of Residents’ Concerns, and a complete summation of results of this county-wide survey, titled Centre County: Todav and Tomorrow -- Public Perceptions. 1995, are available for examination in the County Planning Office.)

E. LEGAL STATUS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

A Comprehensive Plan is not an Ordinance and its individual policy statements and recommendations cannot be enforced as regulations. However, the Municipalities Planning Code does require, after the adoption of such a Plan, that a municipal planning agency review be requested by the governing body (Township Supervisors) before it takes action on certain types of activities. According to the Planning Code, each of the following proposed actions must be reviewed by the Township Planning Commission to determine its consistency with the objectives of the municipal Comprehensive Plan.

1. the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse;

2. the location, erection, demolition, removal or sale of any public structure located within the municipality;

1-5 3. the adoption, amendment or repeal of an official map, subdivision and land development ordinance, zoning ordinance or provisions for planned residential development, or capital improvements program; or

4. the construction, extension or abandonment of any water line, sewer line or sewage treatment facility.

Despite this mandated review, the Planning Code provides that an action taken by a municipal governing body cannot be declared invalid "on the basis that such action is inconsistent with, or fails to comply with, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan." The Code clearly establishes that, while relevant and important, the Planning Commission's recommendations are intended to be advisory in nature.

Additionally, since the County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Code requires that any proposed action by the Township Supervisors relating to the activities identified above must also be submitted to the County Planning Office for review and recommendations prior to execution.

And finally, following adoption of a municipal Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Code requires that "any proposed action of the governing body of a school district located within the municipality relating to the location, demolition, removal, sale or lease of any school district structure or land shall be submitted to the municipal planning agency for their recommendations prior to the execution of any such action by the school district."

1-6 CHAPTER 2 I MUANICIPAL HISTORY & GENERAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 2

MUNICIPAL HISTORY & GENERAL BACKGROUND

To fully understand and appreciate Worth Township today and adequately plan for its future, it is first necessary to be aware of the area’s past and its heritage. A complete history of Centre and Clinton Counties can be found in the History of Centre and Clinton Counties. Pennsvlvania, written by John Blair Linn, and published in 1883. Paraphrased excerpts from this publication and from the Centre Counfy Comprehensive Plan, dated June 1977, are presented below and are intended to provide a brief historical perspective of the County and Township’s past.

A. HISTORY OF CENTRE COUNTY

Prior to 1759, when Captain James Potter first viewed the area, Centre County was a complete wilderness, as was most of Pennsylvania. Streams ran clear and vast forests covered the land. The only signs of man’s presence were small Indian villages and a network of foot trails. Continuing the customs begun by their ancestors, Indians hunted and foraged for food throughout the area.

The first white settlers in Centre County arrived from southeastern Pennsylvania and from Europe. By the early 1800s these pioneers had domesticated the land, and the Indians had vacated the region. Centre County was incorporated and commerce began to prosper. Iron ore was discovered throughout the Nittany Valley and quickly became the basis for the County’s principal industry. Although limited in quantity, the.ore was high in iron content, making it highly profitable to sell in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh markets. There were some twenty iron works spread throughout the County by 1826, including Martha’s Furnace and Hanna’s Furnace in neighboring municipalities.

While mining and iron processing occupied many of the County’s early settlers, others were engaged in farming the region’s broad, fertile valleys. Small villages, complete with sawmills, inns and feed mills, sprang up along the roads that the pioneers built to transport their crops to market. Eventually these villages would become major communities in the County.

Timber harvesting was also an important industry in Centre County during the 1800s. Vast forests of white pine, hemlock, and oak were cut to supply shipbuilding businesses outside the area, to provide bark for tanneries and charcoal for iron smelting, and to supply prop timbers for eastern Pennsylvania coal mines. Bituminous coal mining became economically important in the Philipsburg/Snow Shoe areas of the Allegheny Plateau. Canals, railroads and highways were built to accommodate this trading economy, and company towns sprang up to house the workers for many of the larger mining, timber and manufacturing firms. These company-owned settlements continued as long as the local industries existed. Once the industries ceased operation, however, most of these communities died out.

By the mid-l800s, ironmaking began to decline as a major industry, as the

II - 1 County’s small, crude iron works were no match for the emerging industrial giants of Pittsburgh and Great Britain. Although some strengthening of the iron industry did occur around the Civil War, when the demand for munitions grew, by the time of the Industrial Revolution toward the end of the century, the County’s natural resource based economy had significantly diminished. Even agricultural operations were affected as America’s frontiers pushed further westward and vast areas of the Great Plains were opened to settlement and cultivation.

By the latter years of the 19th century, County residents began migrating to larger cities to find employment. For almost 50 years, the County’s population remained stagnant as a result of this movement. Those who stayed behind depended on the remaining local industries - agriculture, coal, limestone, and clay - for employment.

As transportation to and within the County improved, more specialized industries came to the area. A stable employment base developed as activities such as limestone processing and metal foundries were established. The Pennsylvania State University also provided increasing influence on and support of the region’s economic growth. Originally founded as the Pennsylvania Farmers High School in 1855 to teach improved agricultural techniques to young farmers, the land grant institution changed its name in 1863 to the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania, and in 1874 it became the Pennsylvania State College. By 1940 and the onset of World War II, Centre County had a population of 50,000. Immediately following the War, as Penn State grew to become a major national university, the County entered into another period of prosperity and development. Most of the commercial, industrial and residential development that has occurred in the State College area in the past 50 years can be tied directly to the University. In fact, because Penn State provides so many of the jobs in Centre County, its influence is felt well beyond the boundaries of State College. Many University employees now reside in the County’s smaller communities outside of State College and commute to work at Penn State via the local transportation network.

Today there are 36 municipalities in Centre County; 25 townships and 11 boroughs. For planning purposes these municipalities have been divided into six different regions, from the Penns Valley Region comprised of seven municipalities in the eastern part of the County, to the Moshannon Valley Region which encompasses three municipalities in the westernmost reachs of Centre County and another 19 municipalities in Clearfield County. (See Maps 1 and 2.)

B. HISTORY OF WORTH TOWNSHIP

Worth Township is located in the Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region of Centre County, near the County’s western boundary. Originally part of Halfmoon Township, Worth Township was officially established as an independent entity on January 27, 1848, when Taylor Township, created by a split of Halfmoon Township in 1847, was divided into two pieces. (See Map 1.) According to Linn’s history of the area, the division of Taylor Township occurred because of the “inconvenience resulting from the great extent of territory“ contained within the newly prescribed municipal boundaries. The eastern segment of this split was named Worth Township in honor of General Worth, one of the country’s heros in the Mexican War, while the western portion retained the Taylor

II - 2 A COMPARISON OF CENTRE COUNTY'S PAST MUNICIPALITIES . . .

TOTHOSE OF THE PRESENT MAP 1

Township name.

Cyrus Cartright made the first improvement in Worth Township around 1785. He erected a log dwelling, cleared land, and commenced farming. John Roles, Sr., made an improvement on lands in the Township as early as 1809, but did not remain in the area for long. Other pioneers soon migrated to the Township, and, with their families, began settling the territory. Most of these early residents were farmers, although some were better known as hunters or trappers, exploiting the native wildlife, which included deer, bear, wolves and panthers.

The first grist mill in Worth Township was erected in 1806 by Adam Elder. It was a log building, located in the western part of the Township, and was powered by water from a nearby mountain spring. After a few years the mill was abandoned, and Elder erected a water-powered sawmill in its place. Several additional mills of this kind were located throughout Worth Township as the lumber industry grew in prominence. The first steam sawmill was erected in the southern part of the Township in 1859 and was owned by Pruner and Burley.

By the early 1900s many Worth Township residents were self-employed in the farming industry. During the winter months they found work in the paper mills in Tyrone or sold timber from their farms to make ends meet. By the 1960s though only a few full- time farmers were left in the Township as the market for dairy and livestock products became too specialized. Other residents of the Township found work in the old stone quarry or in McFeely’s Brickyard located on the north side of Bald Eagle Ridge in the southern portion of the municipality. This facility not only provided jobs for those residing in Worth Township, but was a major regional employer from 1920 to 1950 (as many as 300 .people.were employed by the industry during this time)-until its closing -in-the late - 1950s. A few tanneries and community-orientedfactories also provided employment until the mid 1960s, when most residents found it necessary to commute to other Centre County locations, including State College, Bellefonte and Milesburg, or into Blair and Huntingdon Counties to find work.

Settlers in western Worth Township built the municipality’s first school in 1820. It was small in size, built of logs, and had an open fireplace at one end. Jacob Wise, an Englishman, was its first teacher. This school had only a brief existence, as during its second winter it caught fire and burned to the ground. Many other schoolhouses followed as education of the young was considered very important by early Township residents. By 1883, Worth Township had six schools, two of them in Port Matilda, with a total property valuation of $2,500.

During the Township’s early years, religious services were held at Elder’s grist mill or in residents’ homes. Rev. Linn, an itinerant minister, preached in the Township as early as 1815. In 1859, the newly consolidated United Brethren congregation commenced work on a frame church building in the western part of the Township. The Black Oak Chapel of the United Brethren in Christ was built near the Flatrock intersection of what today would be U.S. Route 322 and Mountain Road, and was dedicated in the fall of 1861. Presbyterian and Methodist congregations organized during the 1800s, with their houses of worship located in the village of Port Matilda.

II - 5 At least three places of interment were available in Worth Township in the 1800s. Brown's Burial Ground was probably the oldest, with its first interment occurring about 1819. Some of the Township's earliest settlers, including James Ardery, Sr., and George Records, are known to be buried in this cemetery. Woodring Cemetery, which dates its first interment to "soon after 1820", contains the grave of John Jones, Sr., a Revolutionary War soldier. The third of the Township's burial grounds was Black Oak Cemetery, located in the yard of the Black Oak Chapel. Mr. William Laird, a veteran of the War of 1812, is buried here, as are three or four Civil War soldiers.

Early roads in the Township were 15 to 20 feet wide, constructed simply by cutting trees as close to the ground as possible. Stumps and rocks were not removed, and the condition of these roadways, especially in the spring of the year, was poor. Since wagons were not used in those days, and loads were carried in pack-saddles on horses, these earliest roads adequately served their intended purpose. By 1852, a public road which ran east-west through the Bald Eagle Valley was completed, and a north-south turnpike -- through the area followed a few years later. As a result of the improvements made to the roadways in the region, as many as four stages were running daily through the valley transporting passengers from Bellefonte to Tyrone and Philipsburg. Trade with other parts of the County increased as it become easier to ship or receive goods and merchandise via the improving highway system.

The construction of railroads through the valley essentially paralleled the major road construction projects noted above. While there were a few feeble attempts to initiate railroad enterprises within the county prior to 1830, nothing came to fruition until 1857. In that year, the Lock Haven and Tyrone Railroad Company was authorized to construct ? a line between the two communities. After failing at their attempt to complete the project, the corporation was-soldin 1863 to the Bald Eagle Valley Railroad Company. The railroad project was finally completed in 1864, and was leased in December of that year to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for ninety-nine years. During the 20th century these rail lines changed hands several times as railroads merged and were realigned to remain competitive. In the mid-l980s, SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority purchased the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad lines to preserve at least short line rail service for industries throughout the valley. (See Chapter 8, Section D, for additional information on the Valley's current rail service.)

Borouah of Port Matilda

The first settlement on the site of Port Matilda was made prior to 1836 by Israel Dehaas. He erected a log dwelling and another building which was fitted to allow him to practice his trade as a chair-maker. In the year 1850, Squire Beckwith formed the town plot and named the village in honor of his eldest daughter, Matilda. The village was situated in the southcentral portion of Worth Township (surrounded on all sides by Worth Township), near the base of, and partly on the slope of, what was then called Muncy i

Mountain. Bald Eagle Creek flowed through the center of town, just north of the Bald J Eagle Valley Railroad tracks, and the community was intersected by the turnpike which ran from Philipsburg to the Halfmoon Valley and by the public road which ran through I Bald Eagle Valley. By 1880, the village had a population of 319. Originally part of Worth J Township, the village officially became a Borough in 1926.

II - 6 The first merchandise kept for sale in the village was by Squire Beckwith. Originally he kept only a small variety of goods, but eventually he increased his stock to provide a full line of those wares generally found in country stores. By 1863, A.J. Smith had also opened a store in the community which featured a large assortment of merchandise, and in 1877, A.W. Reese joined the list of town merchants. The town’s first tavern was erected in 1854 by John Fugate, Sr., and around the same time, Beckwith and E.C. Humes built a flouring mill and a water-powered sawmill in the fledgling community.

A sizeable number of manufacturers operated in the community during the mid- 1800s. Thomas Weston constructed the first tannery in Port Matilda in 1865, and the town’s first steam sawmill was erected in 1864 by John I. Thompson. In 1875 A.W. Reese built a planing mill to take advantage of the excellent timber resources available in the nearby valley and along the mountain slopes in Worth Township. Charcoal was manufactured at the Chaney & Thompson facility and by the A.W. Reese Company. By 1881, Chaney & Thompson were shipping as many as 200,000 bushels of charcoal a year, and Reese was selling 150,000 bushels. The town was also home to a furniture manufacturing operation, owned and run by David Canan. While Mr. Canan could produce all types of furniture at his facility, his specialty was making chairs. The iron industry and related operations, such as metal foundries, were also important part of the Borough’s early economy.

C. LOCATION OF WORTH TOWNSHIP IN REGIONAL SElTING

Worth Township is one of 36 municipalities in Centre County, situated almost at the County’s western border. (See Map 3.) It covers 22 square miles of the Bald Eagle Valley and Allegheny foothills, lying between the Bald Eagle Ridge and the Allegheny Plateau. Bald Eagle Creek and several tributary streams drain the foothills whose floodplains and hollows have served as the location for the majority of the Township’s development over the years. At the center of the Township is Port Matilda Borough, a community of approximately 700 people. Although the Borough serves as the hub of local activity and contains most of the area’s social and commercial facilities, the majority of growth experienced in the area in recent years has occurred in the Township. And, while the population of the Township did increase by 25% from 1980 to 1990, the municipality still has less than 1,000 residents and remains essentially rural in character. Up to today, it has largely eluded the pressure and fast-paced development that is extending northwest from the State College area, and as a result Worth Township continues as the tranquil, agriculture-based community it has been for generations. Forests, mountains and farmland continue to be its principal characteristics.

The Bald Eagle Valley has historically been an important transportation corridor. Railroads as well as roadways running through the Valley connect the region to cities and markets well beyond the county limits. A portion of rail line owned by the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority runs through the Township, and has recently been upgraded to allow unit trains transporting coal between Conrail’s main routes at Tyrone and Lock Haven to run on the line. U.S. Routes 220 and 322 serve as the primary highway network to and through Worth Township and the Bald Eagle Valley as a whole. The volume of traffic accommodated by these roadways is likely to increase significantly with the construction of Interstate 99 through the heart of the Township. And the new roadway’s interchange

I1 - 7 MAP 3

s with Corridor 0 of Route 322, just north of Port Matilda, will likely serve as the catalyst for increasing commercial development in the Township.

For planning purposes, Worth Township is considered to be part of the Upper Bald Eagle Region, a rural segment of Centre County comprised of six municipalities located between Unionville in Union Township and county line southwest of Taylor Township. The U.S. Route 220 (1-99) corridor and Bald Eagle Creek are primary features of this planning region. (See Map 2 for an illustration of Centre County’s Planning Areas.)

Centre County is located in the geographic center of Pennsylvania and is the Commonwealth’s fifth largest county in land area, covering 1,115 square miles. (See Map 4 for an illustration of Centre County’s regional setting.) According to 1990 Census data, Centre County ranks 25th out of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties in total population. There are several towns and boroughs scattered throughout Centre County, the largest of which is State College Borough. The County seat is maintained in the Borough of Bellefonte, a community of 6,300 located in the central part of the county.

Access to Worth Township is primarily via the U.S. 220/322 highway network discussed above. As a result of the existing road system, the Township is within easy commute (about 20 miles) of interstate 80, a major east-west highway connecting metropolitan New York to Chicago and points further west. Major employment centers in State College, Philipsburg and Altoona are also readily accessible, as are educational, cultural, recreational and commercial facilities and opportunities. In addition to the major highways running through the area, the Township is also served by several state routes (SR’s) and many local roadways which provide adequate access and mobility within the municipality. (See Chapter 8 for a more detailed listing and analysis of the Township’s transportation system.)

D. GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

The Township government consists of three Supervisors elected by the residents of Worth Township to serve as their official governing body. A part-time Secretary/ Treasurer, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is employed to assist the elected officials with administrative and clerical tasks. A Tax Collector, Tax Assessor, and three Auditors are also elected to serve the Township.

A seven-member Planning Commission, appointed by the Supervisors, serves as an advisory board to and for the elected officials, primarily on land use-related subjects. A Sewage Enforcement Officer also serves the Township as an appointed official.

The Township has no municipal police force or paid fire department. These services are provided by the Pennsylvania State Police and the Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Department, respectively. Emergency medical services are provided by the Port Matilda Ambulance Service and by paramedics from the Centre Community Hospital in State College. The Supervisors are responsible for maintenance of all Township roads within the municipality. (Additional details of the Township’s facilities and services can be found in Chapter 5 of this Plan.)

II - 9 CHAPTER 3 = DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Of all the considerations that affect the future of a municipality, none is more important than the growth or decline of its population. An excessive increase in the number of residents can require services and facilities beyond that which has been planned or can be reasonably accommodated, while a substantial population decrease can reduce the tax base necessary to pay for such services. Without planning, the results of any such growth or decline in population can be disastrous. However, by taking some steps now and attempting to anticipate the numbers of future residents, the Township should be able to preserve its rural character while adequately meeting the needs of its population.

A. PAST GROWTH TRENDS

A community's population is always changing, even if the municipality stays the same size. As noted in June 1997 in the Centre County Comprehensive Plan, Directions for the Future: Guidelines for Decision-Makinq, "People come and go, the birth and death rates change, educational levels increase and decrease, the elderly grow as a proportion of the total population, and so on. It is therefore important to know these characteristics so that community leaders can make decisions that are right for the people. It is also important to monitor change so that decisions made today are not in conflict with future needs."

Table 1, on the next page, provides a comparison of Township and County population for each decade from 1940 to 1990, and includes statewide figures for further evaluation of growth trends over the most recent 50-year period.

Since 1940, Worth Township has experienced an overall population growth of 73.4% -- an increase of 300 persons. During the same time period, Centre County's population grew by 72,204 persons, or 137.3%. According to Census figures provided in Table 1, the Township's growth from 1970 through 1990 was fairly consistent, averaging about 25% for each ten-year period. However, during the 20-year period from 1940 to 1960, the Township's population actually fell by 12.7%, or 52 persons, before rebounding in the 1960s. It is hard to say exactly what caused this decline in population; perhaps a change in economic conditions in the valley, or a desire by residents to live closer to town or their employment. Examination of population statistics from earlier in the century show that the Township lost just over 500 residents when the Borough of Port Matilda incorporated in 1926. It recovered a total of 85 persons by 1940, but lost 55 of them during the 1940s. Once this fluctuating growth trend stabilized in the 1950s, the Township's population continued to increase steadily.

Township population increases in the most recent three decades can in all likelihood be attributed to a return of the "baby boomers" to the valley, and the division of family farms among those returnees. In addition, growth in the late 1980s and early

Ill - 1 TABLE 1

Population Worth Township, Centre County & PA

1940 through 1990

Worth Township Centre County Pennsvlvania Population/% Change Population/% Change Population/% Change

~~ ~ ~~~~

1940 409 ---- 52,608 ---- 9,900,180 ---

1950 354 -13.4% 65,922 25.3% 10,498,012 6.0%

1960 357 0.8% 78,580 19.2% 1 1,319,366 7.8%

1970 475 33.1% 99,267 26.3% 11,793,909 4.2%

1980 568 19.6% 112,760 13.6% 11,864,720 0.6%

1990 * 709 24.8% 124,812 10.7% 11,881,643 0.1%

* Includes population counts through March 1993

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, & 1990. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November 1997.

1990s seems to be the result of an influx of families from the more-urbanized State College area, people who want to escape the hectic "in-town" pace for more leisurely country living, yet remain within an easy commute to work and cultural activities.

Although Centre County continued to grow from 1940 to 1990, its growth percentages varied throughout the period and appear to have reached a peak in 1970. Each of the subsequent decades have registered an incrementally smaller increase. Estimates recently issued by the Census Bureau for the first five years of the current decade indicate that the County experienced a 4.6% increase in population from 1990 to 1995. These same figures estimate that Worth Township grew by 59 persons, or 8.3%, during that five-year period. Thus, assuming consistent factors over the remainder of the decade of the 199Os, one could project an overall population increase for the entire decade of 9.2% for the county and 16.6% for the Township. However, the improvement

Ill - 2 of US Routes 322 and 220, and the construction of 1-99 and its interchange in the Township will have a marked impact on the municipality’s total population during the next several decades.

Table 1 statistics show that the same magnitude of growth is not occurring throughout Pennsylvania as a whole. While the Commonwealth grew at an average rate of 4% from 1940 to 1990, increases over the two most recent decades amounted to less than 1%. It therefore seems that although the County and Township’s growth appear solid, statewide population increases may be levelling off, at least for the time being, perhaps a result of economic difficulties which have occurred in the western part of the state and in some of the Commonwealth’s larger cities over the past 10 to 20 years.

Table 1 (page 111-2) illustrates actual population fluctuations for the Township and the County since 1940. Table 2 (page 111-4) shows the significant effect these changes have had on the municipal and County population densities. Between 1940 and 1990, densities in the County as a whole increased dramatically, from 47.5 persons per square mile in 1940 to I12.7 persons per square mile in 1990. In the Township, population densities also almost doubled during the 50-year period, from 18.8 persons per square mile to 32.7 persons per square mile. These statistics, perhaps better than any others, illustrate how much the Township and County have grown since 1940.

Tables 3 and 4, on pages 111-5 and 111-6, present a regional perspective on population growth and density for the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region from 1950 to 1990. (See also Map 2 on page 11-4.) Table 3 shows that the four Townships in the Planning Area have experienced similar growth trends since the middle of the current century, each having at least doubled its population over this time period. (1990 Census figures for Union Township suggest a less-than-completecount for this community, as the municipality did not lose almost 250 residents from 1980 to 1990.) The two Boroughs in the Region have however begun to see a reduction in their total populations. While both of these small communities actually increased in size in the 1960s and early 1970s, both lost residents during the 1980s, with Port Matilda mounting a small resurgence in the 1990s. Overall, the statistics indicate that the Region grew by 1,521 residents, or 50.2%, from 1950 to 1990 (despite the questionable 1990 Union Township figures), making it one of the fastest-growing areas of Centre County.

A comparison of population density for each of the municipalities in the Planning Area is provided in Table 4. These numbers show that although Worth Township has the smallest area of the Region’s four Townships, it has supported the second largest population density in the area since 1960. (Huston Township maintained the Region’s highest population density throughout the 40-year period.) Table 4 also illustrates that despite its overall population increase over the past 50 years, the density of population throughout the Planning Area remains well below that of the County as a whole.

B. CURRENT POPULATION PROFILE

Just as analyzing past growth trends can be useful in predicting the number of future residents likely in a municipality, profiling its current population can be valuable in estimating the possible distribution of upcoming generations. This Section will examine

Ill - 3 TABLE 2

Population Density Worth Township & Centre County

1940 through 1990

Worth Township Centre County PA

Land Area 21.7 square miles 1, 107.6 square miles 44,819.6 sq. miles

1940 18.8 persons per 47.5 persons per 220.9 persons per square mile square mile square mile

1950 16.3 persons per 59.5 persons per 234.2 persons per square mile square mile square mile

1960 16.5 persons per 70.9 persons per 252.6 persons per square mile square mile square mile

1970 21.9 persons per 89.6 persons per 263.1 persons per square mile square mile square mile

1980 26.2 persons per 101.8 persons per 264.7 persons per square mile square mile square mile

1990 32.7 persons per 112.7 persons per 265.1 persons per square mile square mile square mile

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, & 1990. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November 1997.

Ill - 4 TABLE 3

Population Growth Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1950 through 1990

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Townships

* Huston 572 66 1 837 1, 222 1,282 * Taylor 397 477 499 657 714 Union 683 663 809 1,139 895 Worth 354 357 475 568 709

Boroucrhs

* Port Matilda 685 697 680 647 669 Unionville 341 37 1 375 361 284

-- TOTALS 3,032 3,226 3,675 4,594 4,553

% Change + 6.4% + 13.9% + 25.0% -0.9%

* Municipalities adjoining Worth Township (See also Map 3)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, & 1990. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November 1997.

Ill - 5 TABLE 4

Population Density Comparisons Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1960 through 1990

Land Area * Persons Per Sauare Mile

1960 1970 1980 1990

Townships

Huston 26.0 sq.mi. 25.4 32.2 47.0 49.3 Taylor 30.4 sq.mi. 15.7 16.4 21.6 23.5 Union 46.5 sq.mi. 14.3 17.4 24.5 19.2 Worth 21.7 sq.mi. 16.5 21.9 26.2 32.7

Boroughs

Port Matilda 0.5 sq.mi. 1,394.0 1,360.0 1,294.0 1,338.0 Unionville 0.3 sq.mi. 1,236.7 1,250.0 1,203.3 946.7

TOTALS 125.4 sq.mi. 25.7 29.3 36.6 36.3

% Change + 14.0% + 24.9% -Wh

* Excludes lakes, ponds, and streams

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, 1960, 1970, 1980, & 1990. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., December 1997.

111 - 6 the age and gender composition, race, and household and family characteristics of the Townships’ residents, and will compare these statistics with figures for the county, and in some instances with statewide numbers as well.

1. Aae Distribution

Tables 5 and 6 (pages 111-8 and 111-9) illustrate the age distribution of the population of Worth Township and Centre County, and compare median ages for both jurisdictions for 1980 and 1990.

The 1990 Census figures presented in Table 5 show that the greatest percentage of the Township’s population, 35.3%, is between the ages of 25 and 44. Likewise, statistics for Centre County in 1990 show that the same age group I represents the largest portion of the overall population, 29.3%. Township and County percentages are generally comparable for most of the age groupings, with the exception of the 5-17 and 18-24 groups. Where the Township finds 21.3% of its population between 5 and 17 years of age, and only 7.6% aged 18 to 24, statistics for all of Centre County show a reversal of these percentages countywide. I According to the Census numbers, 28.2% of the County’s total population is 18 to 24 years old, while 12.7% is between the ages of 5 and 17. The obvious explanation for this occurrence is the extremely large number of students, generally between the ages of 18 and 24, who attend Penn State University’s Main Campus in State College. (1990 Census figures show the PSU student population to be just over 33,000, most of them in the 18-24 age category.) While the order of several of the largest age categories varies from the Township to the County, the final five categories rank identically. In each case, the 65-74 grouping ranked in sixth position, the 55-59 age category in seventh position, the 60-64 grouping in eighth, I: the 75-84 group in ninth, and the 85 and over group ranked in tenth place as the smallest segment of the respective populations.

As noted in the preceding paragraph, the 5-17 age group represents a significant portion of the Township’s total population; almost one-quarter of the municipal residents were included in this age category in 1990. A sizeable population of this age could bode well for the Township in the future as these individuals, if they stay in the municipality after graduation, will become the next generation of tax payers. The number of persons in this age group could also impact future student enrollment in the Bald Eagle Area School District. (See Chapter 5, Section F, for a discussion of the District’s current and expected future enrollments.)

Table 6 shows general similarities in age groupings for Worth Township and Centre County. It also compares 1980 and 1990 figures and includes percentage of change in each age category from 1980 to 1990. While the Township’s “under 18” population increased by 12.3% from 1980 to 1990, its percentage of the municipality’stotal population actually decreased from 31 5% to 28.3%. During the same period, the County’s percentage of population in the 18-24 age grouping decreased by 6.6%, as its actual numbers fell from 21.7% to 18.3% of the total. As the number of Township residents over the age of 65 increased by 1.5% between 1980 and 1990, that segment of the total municipal population decreased from

Ill - 7 TABLE 5

Age Distribution Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv Population / % of Total Population / % of Total

Under 5 50 7.1 % 6,989 5.6% 5-17 151 21.3% 15,851 12.7% 18-24 54 7.6% 35,197 28.2% 25-44 252 35.5% 36,570 29.3% 45-54 80 11 -3% 10,484 8.4% 55-59 34 4.8% 4,368 3.5% 60-64 20 2.8% 4,244 3.4% 65-74 43 6.1% 6,490 5.2% 75-84 20 2.8% 3,495 2.8% 85 & Over 5 0.7% 1,124 0.9%

TOTALS 709 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, 1993. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November & December ! 1997. J

Ill - 8 TABLE 6

Age Group Comparisons Worth Township & Centre County

1980 and 1990

Worth Township Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990 Population / % of Total Population / % of Total

Age Group

% Chanae % Chanae

Under 18 179 201 12.3% 24,420 22,840 -6.5% (3 1.5%) (28.3%) (21.7%) (1 8.3%)

18 - 64 322 440 36.7% 79,794 90,863 13.9% (56.7%) (62.1%) (70.7%) (72.8%)

65 & Over 67 68 1.5% 8,546 11,109 30.0% (1 1.8%) ( 9.6%) (7.6%) (8.9%)

TOTALS 568 709 112,760 124,812

Median Aae- 26.5 years 32.5 years 24.3 years 27.0 years

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, August 1983 & March 1993. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November & December 1997.

Ill - 9 11.8% in 1980 to 9.6% in 1990. The County's elderly population, by comparison, increased by 30.0% in the same IO-year period, and actually accounted for a 1.3% larger portion of the overall 1990 population. These figures suggest that the Township's population is aging at a slower pace than that of all of the County's municipalities added together.

Despite increases in the number of residents 65 years of age and older, the median age statistics presented in this table reveal that both populations possess a "young" median age. While the figures indicate Township residents actually aged faster from 1980 to 1990 than did county residents as a whole, it must be reemphasized that the County's 18-64 population category contains a substantial number of Penn State students which, because of continual change, I remain forever "young", thereby distorting the overall County median age. Still, despite this substantial influence, the County's median age increased from 24.3 to 27.0 years of age during the 1980s. This increase in median age can be attributed to the fact that a growing number of Penn State alumni are returning to the State College area to retire and take advantage of the cultural amenities available in the region.

2. Gender and Race Distributions

At the time of the 1990 Census, Table 7 (page 111-11) shows that the population of Worth Township was 50.8% male and 49.2% female, only a slight change from its 51.9% male and 48.1% female distribution in 1980. While these figures show males losing their proportional edge from 1980 to 1990 in Worth Township, they show just the opposite countywide. Although representing only a 0.4% increase, the total percentage of males throughout Centre County rose from 51.4% to 51.8%.

The 1980 Census and 1990 Census reveal that there were no minority or other non-white individuals living in Worth Township at either of these times. Likewise, small percentages of the County's total population came from minority racial groups. Three percent of the 1980 County population and 6.6% of the 1990 total were non-whites. The County's Asian population more than doubled from 1980 to 1990, establishing itself as the largest of the County's minority races.

Table 8, on page 111-12, presents gender and race distribution information I from 1980 to 1990 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The state's male/ i female percentage composition did not change from 1980 to 1990. Statewide, females held a 52.1% edge over males, just the opposite of the trend in the center of the state. The other non-white populations did grow throughout the state over the past decade, albeit slowly. Census figures indicate an increase in 0.4% in the black population and 1.0% in all other minority races during the period.

3. Household and Familv Characteristics

A comparison of household and family characteristics from 1980 to 1990 in both Township and County is presented in Table 9 on pages 111-13 and 111-14.

Ill - 10 .1 TABLE 7

Gender & Race Distribution Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990 Population / % of Total Population / % of Total

Gender

Male 295 360 57,943 64,653 (51.9%) (50.8%) (51.4%) (51.8%)

Female 273 349 54,817 60,159 (48.1%) (49.2%) (48.6%) (48.2%)

TOTALS 568 709 112,760 124,812

Race

White 568 709 109,376 116,552 (1 00%) (100%) (97.0%) (93.4%)

Black ------1,704 2,801 ( 0.0%) (0.0%) ( 1.5%) (2.2%)

Asian ------1,404 3,841 (0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) (3.1%)

Other ------276 1,618 ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.2%) ( 1.3%)

TOTALS 568 709 112,760 124,812

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, August 1983 & March 1993. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November & December 1997.

Ill - 11 TABLE 8

Gender & Race Distribution Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

1980 & 1990

1980 1990

Total PoDulation 11,864,720 11,881,643

Gender

Male 5,683,20 1 5,694,265 (47.9%) (47.9%)

Female 6,181 319 6,187,378 (52.1%) (52.1%)

Race

White 10,666,383 10,520,201 (89.9%) (88.5%)

Black 1,044,095 1,089,795 ( 8.8%) ( 9.2%)

Other 154,242 271,647 ( 1.3%) (2.3%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, August 1983 & March 1993. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November 1997.

Ill - 12 TABLE 9 i Households & Family Characteristics Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990 Population / % of Total Population / % of Total

Households

# of Family 160 206 23,936 26,359 Households (79.2%) (78.6%) (66.3%) (61.8%)

# of Non-Family 42 56 12,187 16,324 Households (20.8%) (21.4%) (33.7%) (38.2%)

TOTALS 202 262 36,123 42,683 (+ 29.7%) (+ 18.2%)

Persons Per Household 2.87 2.71 2.69 2.55 I i

Familv Households

I Married Couple 155 181 21,009 22,677 Family (96.9%) (87.9%) (87.8%) (86.0%)

I Female Householder, 4 15 2,296 2,263 I I No Husband Present (2.5%) ( 7.3%) ( 9.6%) (10.1 %) i Others 1 10 631 1,019 1 ( 0.6%) (4.8%) (2.6%) (3.9%)

TOTALS 160 206 23,936 26,359 I (+ 28.7%) (+ 10.1%)

i (Continued on Next Page) I Ill - 13 _1 TABLE 9

Households & Family Characteristics (Continued)

Worth Townshir, Centre County

1980 1990 1980 1990 i Population / % of Total Population / % of Total

Non-Familv Households

Livina Alone

Female 22 23 6,176 5,590 (52.4%) (41.1%) (34.2%) Male 20 25 6,011 4,482 (47.6%) (44.6%) (27.4%)

Other

Female --- 2 NA 2,540 (3.6%) (15.5%) Male --- 6 NA 3,712 (10.7%) (22.9%)

TOTALS 42 56 12,187 16,324 (+ 33.3%) (+ 33.9%)

NA - Data Not Available I Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, August 1983 & March 1993. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., November 1997.

Ill - 14 Of the 262 households in the Township in 1990, 206, or 78.6% were considered family households. (According to the US Bureau of Census, a family consists of a householder and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.) The remaining 56 households, or 21.4%, were considered non-family households. (These households include persons living alone, as well as groups of unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit.) Table 9 reveals that 69.1% of the Township’s total 1990 households and 87.9% of its family households were married-couple households, while 7.3% of the family households were female- headed households with no husband present. Countywide the percentages for 1990 are fairly similar, although County figures reveal a lower overall percentage of family households, and a slightly higher percentage of female-headed households. Specifically, 1990 statistics reflect that 61.8% of all households in Centre County were considered family households, while the remaining 38.2% were identified as non-family households. (Students living off-campus make up the majority of the County’s non-family households.)

While the total number of households increased by 29.7% in Worth Township from 1980 to 1990, the number of persons per household decreased from 2.87 persons in 1980 to 2.71 persons in 1990. County figures show the same pattern: a reduction from 2.69 to 2.55 persons per household between 1980 and 1990. By comparison, 1990 statistics for Pennsylvania reveal that there were 2.57 persons per household statewide.

Of the Township’s 56 non-family households in 1990, 48, or 85.7%, were individuals living alone. The majority of these persons (52.1%) were males, which represented a change from the female dominance (52.4%) of 1980. County figures for 1990 show that of its 16,324 non-family households, a total of 61.6% represented persons living alone, 55.5% of them women.

The reduction in the overall number of family households and the corresponding increase in the number of non-family households found in the data for Centre County from 1980 to 1990 can again be attributed to Penn State students and to their lifestyle choices. The rather significant difference in the percentage of non-family households between Worth Township and the County in 1990 (16.8%) can also be linked to the students’ living preferences.

C. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

There are numerous methodologies used to predict or estimate a municipality’s future growth or decline. Several of these techniques are explored for Worth Township and Centre County in Tables 10 and 11 (pages 111-16 and 111-17).

One technique for projecting the future population of a municipality involves comparing its birth rate versus death rate and its anticipated in-migration and out- migration. Table 10 presents population projections for Worth Township and Centre County through the year 2020, and uses a mathematical compilation of both types of data. These projections were prepared by the Centre County Planning Office in 1993 and

Ill - 15 TABLE 10

Population Projections Worth Township & Centre County

1990-2020

Worth Township Centre Count!, *

Year

1990 709 124,812

1995 809 133,310

2000 897 139,158

2005 994 145,177

2010 1,071 150,608

2015 1,149 155,172

2020 1,220 158,749

TOTAL GROWTH 51 1 33,937

% Increase (+ 72.1%) (+ 27.2%)

* Includes a constant 33,069 Penn State University students

Source: Centre County Planning Office, "Trends in PoDulation Size for Centre County", April 1993. (Projections based on age data from 1990 Census of Population and Housing, and Birth and Death data from PA Department of Health.) Calculations by Landplan, Inc., December 1997.

Ill - 16 TABLE 11

Population Projections Worth Township

1990-2020

Low Moderate High Birth/Death (+ .5%/year) (+ 1.O%/year) (+ 2.0%/year) Population Migration Migration Migration Growth Growth Growth Growth

1990 709

1995 737 727 744 780

2000 765 745 781 858

2005 793 764 . 820 944

201 0 821 783 861 1,038

201 5 849 803 904 1,142

2020 877 823 949 1,256

TOTAL 168 114 240 547 GROWTH (+23.7%) ( + 16.1 %) ( + 33.9%) (+77.2%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing; PA Department of Health, State Data Center; and Internal Revenue Service, Area to Area Migration Flow, Statistics of Income Division, April 1990. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., December 1997.

Ill - 17 were issued as part of their countywide population projection, Trends in PoDulation Size for Centre Comfy. The same general methodologies were used to develop the population projections for the next 30 years for Worth Township and are presented in Table 11. In this instance, however, the estimates shown in the first column resulted from an examination of the actual number of births and deaths that occurred in Township from 1980 to 1990, and represent possible growth based on a continuation of these same or similar trends. The projections provided in the latter three columns of the table were calculated using various percentages to reflect potential in/out migration.

The numbers presented in Table 10 and 11 are only estimates, and, as shown, can vary rather dramatically from one projection to the next. Despite all of the techniques and theories available, it is still difficult to predict the future. Unpredictable natural phenomenon or unexpected human decisions may influence, either negatively or positively, even the most thorough, thoughtful projections. In the case of Worth Township, the biggest influence on the municipality's future growth will undoubtedly be the construction of 1-99 and its interchange with US Routes 322 and 220. If, as expected, this new interstate highway increases access to, from and through the Township, the municipality will likely experience significant pressure for commercial and industrial or warehousing development. This development could lead directly to additional residential growth as new employees settle and live close to their jobs. The new roadway will make the Township, and the Upper Bald Eagle Valley in general, more accessible, thereby exposing undeveloped parts of the area to pressure for residential settlement. Although the physiographic relief and soils of much of Worth Township may limit uncontrolled development, other areas will likely succumb to the demand for land, and new residential growth will occur. Even the extent to which a developer is willing to "improve" a site will effect the size and ultimate success of a development. While some amount of residential development appears likely, the precise amount cannot be accurately predicted; therefore exact population growth counts are not possible, and projections must serve.

D. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Despite a lack of significant acreage immediately suitable for development, it seems likely that the Township can expect growth, and as a result, an increase in its population over the next 15-20 years. While total growth over the period may not reach the levels expressed in several of the projections included in this Chapter, it would not be unrealistic to predict an overall increase of 250 people, or 35.3%, by the year 2020. With 1-99 and its Route 322 Interchange in the Township, residential development will undoubtedly find a way to locate in the municipality. Whether in the form of new single-family home lots utilizing sub-surface sewage disposal facilities, or multi-family dwelling units served by package sewage treatment systems constructed by developers, development will occur.

The municipality's ultimate in-migration levels will be affected by the Township's land-use policies and any zoning regulations which may be enacted. In addition, the area's economy, and its facilities, services and other support programs, including education, could have a profound effect on future growth in the Township. (See Chapter 4 for an assessment of the Township's economy, and Chapters 5 and 6 for an evaluation t, of the community's facilities, services and public utilities.)

Ill - 18 Preparation for the anticipated quantity and expected rate of growth must be factored into the land-use recommendations and implementation strategies contained in Chapters 11 and 12 of this Plan. The Future Land-Use Recommendations Map will identify suitable locations within the Township for future residential growth, as well as other types of land uses. (See Map 30, page XI-1OA.) Zoning regulations, when enacted, could site future growth in appropriate areas of the Township.

Ill - 19 CHAPTER 4 - EC'ONOMIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A region’s existence depends to a great extent on its ability to establish and maintain an economic base from which it derives employment and the income necessary to import those goods and services it cannot produce itself. A balanced economy requires that income equals export. Income is derived from the sale of locally produced goods and services, and export, on the other hand, is money leaving home to import those goods and services not produced locally.

Basic industries, or those producing goods for export, thereby generating income, are the economic lifeblood of the region. These industries help to maintain the flow of money and capital into the region, which can then be paid out as wages, reinvested in capital improvements, or taxed to provide for other services. Without these industries, most of the region’s money would be drained from the area, leaving an unstable, deficient I economy.

Basic industries also tend to spawn tertiary or spin-off activities or businesses which either support the industries themselves or the population that they employ through the I i provision of numerous services. With this in mind, it becomes important to assess and analyze the qualities of the various segments of the economy, to review characteristics of the labor force, and to diagnose the future economic health of the area.

This Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will present a general assessment of the region’s economy; examine local and countywide employment statistics; and provide an economic forecast for the area over the next decade.

A. REGIONAL ECONOMY

1. Backaround

Historically, Centre County was known for the iron ore that was discovered in the Nittany Valley early in the 19th century and for the iron works that subsequently located throughout the county. While mining and iron processing employed many of the county’s inhabitants at this time, others were more interested in agriculture and in farming the region’s broad, fertile valleys. Timber harvesting was also an important industry in the County in the 1800s. In addition 1 to its use for construction purposes, timber was also used to make charcoal for iron smelting. And, in the upper reaches of the Allegheny Plateau, bituminous coal mining was a viable economic venture in the county’s early days.

As transportation networks improved some residents migrated to the cities to find jobs, and more specialized industry came to the county. A stable employment base developed as activities such as limestone processing and metal foundries were established. The Pennsylvania State University also provided increasing influence on and support of the region’s economy. Originally founded as the

IV - 1 Pennsylvania Farmers High School in 1855 to teach improved agricultural techniques to young farmers, the institution has now become a major national university with a student body of more than 40,000. Much the commercial and industrial growth that has occurred in Centre County in the past 50 years can be directly attributed directly to Penn State.

In the early 1900s many Worth Township residents were self-employed in the farming industry. During winter months they found work in the paper mills in Tyrone or sold timber from their land to make ends meet. By the 1960s though only a few full-time farmers were left in the Township as the market for dairy and livestock products became more specialized. Other residents of the Township found work in the old stone quarry or in McFeely’s Brickyard located on the north slope of the Bald Eagle Ridge in the southern portion of the municipality. This facility not only provided jobs for those residing in Worth Township, but was a major regional employer ‘from 1920 until 1950 (as many as 300 people were employed by the industry during this time) until its closing in the late 1950s.

Today, Worth Township residents have access to a wide range of employers and employment opportunities within a reasonable commuting distance of their homes. According to statistics from the 1990 Census the vast majority are employed within Centre County, although some have found it necessary or desireable to travel to neighboring counties to find suitable work. (See Table 24 on page IV-23 for further work site information.)

Table 12 below lists the 20 largest employers in Centre County during the fourth quarter of 1998, according to research by the Centre Daily Times. While the specific businesses or industries included in such as listing and the actual number of workers employed in the designated companies varies from source to source, the data is still valuable in recognizing some of the region’s largest employers. (See also Appendix B of this Plan for a listing of the County’s industries employing 60 or more employees as well as a listing of those industries located within the Upper Bald Eagle and Moshannon Valley Planning Regions.)

2. Economic Development Oraanizations

To facilitate economic growth and development within Centre County there are at least three agencies working with existing and prospective businesses and industries in Centre County, including the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, the MoshannonValley Economic Development Partnership, and the Bellefonte Intervalley Area Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (CBICC), headquarteredin State College, is a non-profit corporation dedicated to serving and advocating for the business community. It was formed in 1993 by the merger of the State College Area Chamber of Commerce and the Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, and today serves a membership of over 700. As a result of the merger, the Industrial Development Corporation became a wholly

IV - 2 TABLE 12

Top 20 Centre County Employers, by Number of Employees *

1998

Employer Number of Employees **

1. Pennsylvania State University 9,917 2. State College Area School District 1,190 3. Corning Asahi Video Products Co. 1,100 4. Murata Electronics North America 1,100 5. Pennsylvania State Government 1,280 6. Centre Community Hospital 890 7. Cerro Metal Products Co. 680 8. Centre County Government 600 9. C-Cor Electronics, Inc. 598 10. Glen 0. Hawbaker, Inc. 500 11. Charles Navasky & Co. 450 12. Raytheon Systems Co. 450 13. HRI, Inc. 450 14. WaLMart Stores, Inc. 425 15. Meadows Psychiatric Center 356 16. Bellefonte Area School District 335 17. Accu-Weather, Inc. 313 18. Omega Financial Corp. 208 19. Supelco Inc. 283 20. Bald Eagle Area School District 271

* See also Appendix B for a listing of Major Centre County Industries.

** Includes both full-time employees or full-time equivalents.

Source: Centre Daily Times, Business Matters, (employee figures from state and local sources), January 1999.

IV - 3 owned subsidiary of the CBICC, thereby providing an opportunity to add industrial development and recruitment to the Chamber's available programs.

The Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership, also a non-profit corporation, was formed in 1987, in response to economic development which was occurring in the Moshannon Valley area of Centre and Clearfield Counties at the time. Its purposes were to further economic development of the Valley; relieve high unemployment; and preserve the overall welfare of the region. Today the organization serves its membership from offices located in the Moshannon Valley Enterprise Center on Shady Lane in Philipsburg.

The Bellefonte intervalley Chamber of Commerce is housed in the train station in downtown Bellefonte, and provides guidance and assistance to businesses interested in locating the Bellefonte, Milesburg, and Intervalley areas of Centre County. Although this 180-member Chamber considered merging with the CBiCC during 1998, a complete merger of the organizations was defeated in November of that year. Instead an affiliation between the two groups is to be pursued whereby both organizations will continue to work together to promote the best possible development for the region.

3. Industrial DeveloDment Facilities

To facilitate and promote new industrial growth and the expansion of existing companies in Centre County, the Chamber of Business and Industry developed and operates the Penn Eagle industrial Park. This Park is situated adjacent to State Route 150 near Bellefonte, and upon completion of the 1-99 construction project will be within five miles of 1-80. All six lots in Phase I of the Park's development have been sold, and six of the available parcels in Phase I1 had been sold by end of 1998, with sales for two more pending. Employment in these 12 companies over the next three years is projected to reach almost 700.

The Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership is also pursuing the recruitment of new industrial growth and the expansion of existing business in their area of the County through the development of a "fully-served" industrial park. During 1998, the Partnership received a $600,000 grant from the PA Department of Community and Economic Development and a $200,000 grant from SEDA Council of Governments to acquire and develop a 71 acre site located along U.S. , Route 322 in Rush Township into an industrial park suitable for light manufacturing and wholesale distribution operations. The site will be subdivided into 11-1 2 lots, each with public water, sewer and road access. Overall it is projected that as many as 300 new jobs will be created by development of the Park and at least 50 existing jobs will be maintained. The site's February 1999 Keystone Opportunity Zone designation should also provide a major incentive for businesses to locate in this area.

Incubator programs and facilities also help new companies increase their chances for success, by reducing their initial start-up costs, providing shared space, administrative services, management consulting and financial planning. Centre County has three such incubator programs: the Technology Incubator run

IV - 4 by the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, located at the Penn State Research Center; the Enterprise Centers operated by the Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership, situated in the old General Cigar plant in Philipsburg and in the old Cannondale bicycle plant at the Mid-State Airport; and the n8w Penn State Zetachron Center for Science and Technology Business Development, a joint partnership between the CBICC and Penn State.

Several other economic development projects are also being planned and promoted in neighboring Blair County, including a new business/industrial park along U.S. Route 220 in the Bald Eagle area of Snyder Township, less than five miles from the Centre County line. This new complex, being developed by the Altoona Blair County Development Corporation (ABCD), will be situated on 60-70 acres of ground located near 1-99 and will also be served by a siding on the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad. Smith Transport Inc. has already expressed an interest in building an intermodal distribution facility at the site. This facility alone is expected to create 110 new jobs while preserving work for another 525 current employees. In 1998, the ABCD was awarded a grant in the amount of $1.25 million through the PA Department of Community and Economic Development’s Infra- structure Development Program to install water and sewer lines and to improve rail access for development of this site.

4. Tourism

Tourism is a major economic activity in Centre County. Not only is Beaver Stadium one of the most populous locations in the state on at least six Saturdays each autumn, other Centre County attractions, such as the Bryce Jordan Center, Penn’s Cave and the Bellefonte Historic Railroad, as well as the area’s many festivals and events, are responsible for drawing thousands of tourists to the County each year. As a result, the County has also become one of the most highly-sought destinations on the convention and tourism circuits. According to figures from the Centre County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, more than $1 15 million was spent on food, lodging, shopping and entertainment in Centre County in 1996; an increase of 17.7% from 1995. (See also Part G. in Chapter 5 for a listing of the various parks, recreation facilities and activities which are available in Centre County.) A new Visitor’s Center, to be built across from Beaver Stadium and the Agricultural Arena at the intersection of Fox Hollow and Porter Roads, should also appeal to tourists. Slated to open in 1999, the joint venture between the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau and Penn State will include outdoor picnic facilities, small retail shops and a reservation service for area hotels, restaurants, \ and bed and breakfast establishments.

6. LOCAL ECONOMY

Even though most of the industrial/manufacturing operations once located in and around Worth Township are now gone, either victims of the changing times or obsolete technology, a field survey conducted in June 1998 by Landplan, Inc. identified at least 30 businesses providing employment within the Township. While the majority of these commercial enterprises can be found along U.S. Route 220, an increasing number of in-

IV - 5 home businesses are beginning to locate throughout the municipality. (The number of home occupations will likely continue to rise in the future as advances in technology allow employees to work outside of the traditional office.)

Table 13 on the next page provides a listing of the commercial land uses in Worth Township in 1998. In addition to those commercial activities occurring in Worth Township, another dozen or so enterprises are located in Port Matilda Borough. These commercial ventures include: Omega Bank, Lykens Market, Lykens Oil, the Port Matilda Hotel and Restaurant, Brothers Pizza, Puff and Snuff , Curves-a-Head Salon, All Kinds of Time, Apple Barrel Gifts, Scuba Escapes, Nittany Building Specialties, and Crain Lumber.

C. EMPLOY M ENT /U NEM P LOY MENT/INCOM E 1. Emplovment/Unemplovment

For eight straight months in 1998, Centre County enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Labor and Industry statistics. The County’s 2.8% November 1998 unemployment rate was well below the state average of 4.6% and the national rate of 4.4%. In reality, the Labor and Industry statistics show that Centre County has been at or near the state low in unemployment rate for the past several years. The County’s diversified economy has been and continues to be responsible for major increases in the size of the area’s labor force and in the number of new jobs created. As a result, most people who want jobs have been able to find them, thereby assuring a low unemployment rate. Penn State and its wealth of knowledge and research capabilities are credited with being the driving force behind much of the economic growth in the region and, according to many of the local experts, that stimulus will likely continue well into the future.

While there have been some changes in the type of employment and in actual employers over the years, the overall employment picture in Centre County appears to be quite stable. When added to the other cultural and recreational amenities available in the area, Centre County certainly seems to have a very appealing package to offer to prospective employers, employees, and residents.

As noted in Part B of this Chapter, there are few employment opportunities in Worth Township. Most of the municipality’s available labor force has however been able to find suitable employment within reasonable commuting distance, either in Centre County or in nearby Blair or Huntingdon Counties.

2. General Income Characteristics

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the per capita income for Worth Township residents in 1990 was $10,814, compared to the County’s per capita income for the same year of $1 1,854. Even though these figures show Township residents earned only slightly less than County residents as a whole, Worth Township actually ranked 19th highest among the County’s 36 municipalities in per capita income at the end of the 1980’s. Table 14 (page IV-9) illustrates how per

IV - 6 i

TABLE 13

Commercial Land Uses Worth Township

1998

Company Name Product Generated or Service Rendered

1. Confer’s Garage School bus garage 2. Highwood Auto Repair Auto body work 3. Michael’s Auto Body Auto body work 4. Andreozzi’s Posies Nursery/greenhouse sales 5. Stanton’s Garage Auto repairs & service 6. Professional Equipment Centre Office services/auto sales 7. Jarcy’s Motel Lodging 8. Valley Homes Mobile home sales 9. Citgo Gas Vehicle gas station 10. Maplewood Manor Elderly care facility 11. Nittany Building Specialties Construction office 12. Plants & Things Greenhouse/gift shop 13. Bob Martin’s Dog Training School Kennels, dog training & grooming services 14. Neil H. Daye, Mason Masonry services & office 15. Way’s Fruit Farm Fruit & fruit product sales 16. Nittany Greyhounds Greyhound dog kennels & services 17. Wayne’s Auto Repair Auto body work 18. Bloom’s Complex Water systems, used appliances, & produce sales 19. Carper’s Custom Cabinets Cabinetry & remodeling services 20. Spittin’ Image Taxidermy Taxidermy services 21. Guenot & Associates Insurance & financial planning services 22. Port Matilda Sportsman’s Club Private sportsmen’s club 23. Robert Lucas Masonry Masonry services 24. Uncle Bill’s Pizza Pizza & sandwich sales 25. George Williams Sanitation Garbage collection 26. W & J Woodward Excavation Excavating services 27. Stiver’s Carpentry Carpentry services 28. Moyer’s Landscaping Landscaping services 29. Poorman’s Overhead Doors Overhead door sales & service 30. PADOT Stockpile Maintenance Area Highway maintenance storage area

5 Source: Centre County Planning Office, 1995 Land Use Survey, Port Matilda Quadrangle, and Field Observation by Landplan, Inc., June 1998. [ j

IV - 7 capita incomes for each of the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region municipalities and for the County have steadily increased from 1980 to 1990, and compares the local statistics with figures for the entire Commonwealth. (General income characteristics are presented in greater detail in Table 15, page IV-10, and a breakdown of annual household income is provided in Table 16, page IV-12.)

Interestingly enough, Table 14 reveals that while there is still considerable disparity in per capita income between the Planning Region and Centre County as a whole, each of the Region’s municipalities (with the exception of Port Matilda) experienced a greater increase in income from 1980 to 1990 than did the County, thereby narrowing the gap at least somewhat.

In 1990, the median family income in Worth Township was $28,333, and $34,313 countywide. (See Table 15, page IV-IO.) Thus, income for Township families was somewhat less than the average for families throughout the County. Median household income figures for 1990 also show the same trend. Where the median household income for Township residents in 1990 was $23,672, countywide numbers for the same year were slightly higher at $26,060. A similar variation was also evident at the time of the 1980 census, when both median family income and median household income were higher in the county than they were in Worth Township. Despite these differences, it is still interesting to note the extraordinary rise in both Township income categories between 1980 and 1990. According to the statistics presented in Table 15, median household income rose 92.6% and median family income increased by 80.3%. for Township residents during the 10 year period. Throughout the County as a whole, median household income only increased by 75.4%, while median family income rose 79.7%. Although the majority of these increases can be directly attributed to inflation, it is apparent that Township residents are nevertheless closing the gap.

Unfortunately the number of persons and families below the poverty level in Worth Township and in the County as well is still fairly significant, despite public perception to the contrary. As the figure in Table 15 (page IV-10) show, 40 more persons reached the poverty level in the Township during the 1980s, increasing that segment of the municipality’s population from 6.3% to 10.7%. But, although the number of poverty level families increased by one between 1980 and 1990, the percentage of families so classified actually decreased from 5.6% to 4.9% over the period. Throughout the County as a whole, an additional 3,472 persons reached poverty status during the decade of the 1980s, but 231 fewer families were I identified. At least some of this shifting may .be due to better collection and tabulation of Census data from Penn State students. (According to Census Bureau

figures, poverty level was $7,412 for a family of four in 1980 and $12,674 for the I same size family in 1990. For comparison purposes, federal HUD standards for determining poverty level income for the Small Communities Block Grant Program in 1991 considered $16,000 for a four-person household to be “very low” income, while $25,600 for the same size household was considered “low to moderate” income. By 1997, the low/moderate income threshold has increased to $31,200 I ! for a family of four.) Many types of financial assistance, food stamps, and welfare . ..I programs are available for families with incomes below these or other specifically designated levels.

I IV - 8 1 TABLE 14

Per Capita Income Characteristics Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, Centre County & PA

1980 & 1990

1980 1990

TownshiDs

Huston $ 5,090 $ 10,388 (104.1%)

Taylor 4,826 13,742 (184.7%)

Union 5,057 10,652 (1 10.6%)

WORTH 5,190 10,814 (108.4%)

Boroughs

Port Matilda $ 5,102 $ 9,453 (85.3%)

Unionville 4,564 10,346 (126.7%)

TOTALS $ 5,017 $ 10,892 (117.1%) (Mean Per Capita Income)

Centre Countv $ 5,909 $ 11,854 (100.6%)

-PA $ 7,077 $ 14,068 ( 98.8%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A & 3, respectively. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

IV - 9 TABLE 15

General Income Characteristics Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990

Households

# of Households 202 262 (29.7%) 36,123 42,683 (18.2%)

Median Household Income $12,292 $23,672 (92.6%) $14,862 $26,060 (75.4%)

Mean Household Income $14,496 $28,149 (94.2%) $17,630 $33,235 (88.5%)

Families

# of Families 160 206 (28.7%) 23,936 26,359 (10.1%) Median Family Income $15,714 $28,333 (80.3%) $19,099 $34,313 (79.7%)

Median Non-Family Income ---- $ 8,911 ---- $14,295

Povertv Level *

Persons Below 36 76 (111.1%) 16,276 19,748 (21 3%) Poverty Level (6.3%) (10.7%) (14.4%) (15.8%)

Families Below 9 10 (11.1%) 1,872 1,641 (-12.3%) Poverty Level (5.6%) (4.9%) (7.8%) ( 6.2%)

* See also Table 17

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and , Housing, Summary Tape File 3A and 3. 1 IV- 10 .-.s As noted previously, the income characteristics presented in Table 16 (page IV-12) provide an itemization of the range of annual incomes experienced by Township and County residents at the time of the 1980 and 1990 censuses. This data shows the Township’s three largest income categories in 1990 to be: 1) the $15,000 - $24,999 category, 2) the $35,000 - $ 49,999 classification, and 3) the $25,000 - 34,999 range. (More than two-thirds, or 67.2% to be exact, of the Township’s households reported income in one of these three ranges in 1990.) Figures for Centre County during the same time period reveal the same three classifications to be the highest ranking income categories countywide as well, I ’. although the second and third place ranges were reversed. Overall, 52.5% of the county’s household incomes were accounted for in these categories. But, while the Township and County seem to have had roughly the same percentage of households earning less than $15,000 per year in 1990, the County had a significantly greater number of households earning in excess of $50,000 annually at that time. According to Table 16, more than 19.5% of all county households had annual incomes over $50,000 in 1990, while only 8.7% of the Township’s households could claim earnings in the same range.

While the number of households reporting income in the upper categories for the Township increased considerably from 1980 to 1990, it is still important to note that the number of lower income households remained significant. Specifically, 52.8% of the Township’s households still earned less than $25,000 a year in 1990. Even adjusting for inflation, it is unlikely that this percentage has dropped much below 45% by 1998. As such, it is likely difficult for these households to meet their general financial obligations, let alone attempt to commit to a major new purchase, such as a car or a house. And, while it is encouraging to see that the number of households in the lower income brackets decreased from 1980 to 1990, it must be remembered that inflation did not remain stationary during the period, nor did the overall cost-of-living. Thus, it required a household to earn more just to retain the same buying power it had 10 years earlier.

Further details of those persons identified as having reached poverty level status in 1980 and 1990 is presented in Table 17, on page IV-13. This information clearly shows that in 1980 and in 1990 the majority of those persons experiencing income difficulties, both in the Township and in the county, were those individuals between the ages of 18-59. In Worth Township, 51.3% of those persons with poverty level incomes were listed in this category, while 82.4% of the county’s total poverty level persons were classified in this age range, undoubtedly resulting from the sizeable number of Penn State students that were counted. It is also important 1 to note from these statistics that a greater number of the Township’s children, or I those under 18 years of age, were included in the poverty designation in 1990 than in 1980. Conversely, the percentage of those persons in the Township over age 60 and categorized as below the poverty level decreased during the same period.

D. LABORFORCE

In addition to evaluating employment and income trends, it is also important to consider the composition of a municipality’s labor force and their education levels to get

IV- 11 TABLE 16

Annual Household Income Characteristics Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth Townshir, Centre County

1980 1990 1980 1990 Annual Income Households / % of Total Households / % of Total

Less than $5,000 22 (10.9%) 21 (7.9%) 5,318 (14.7%) 2,774 (6.5%)

$5,000 to $9,999 57 (28.2%) 23 (8.6%) 6,724 (18.6%) 4,354 (10.2%)

$10,000 to $14,999 37 (18.3%) 20 ( 7.6%) 6,175 (17.1%) 4,823 (11.3%)

$15,000 to $24,999 56 (27.7%) 75 (28.7%) 9,856 (27.3%) 8,452 (19.8%)

$25,000 to $34,999 26 (12.9%) 44 (16.8%) 4,630 (12.8%) 7,128 (16.7%)

$35,000 to $49,999 4 ( 2.0%) 57 (21.7%) 2,409 (6.7%) 6,829 (16.0%)

$50,000 to $74,999 -- 14 ( 5.3%) 1,011 (2.8%) 5,378 (12.6%) $75,000 to $99,999 -- 4 ( 1.7%) I 1,707 ( 4.0%) $100,000 and More -- 4 ( 1.7%) I 1,238 (2.9%)

TOTALS 202 262 * 36,123 42,683 * (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A and 3, respectively. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998. I

IV- 12 tI

i TABLE 17

I Poverty Status By Age Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990 i

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990 Persons / % of Total Persons / % of Total

'! Under 5 I 7 (9.2%) 896 ( 5.5%) 889 (4.5%)

5-17 25 (69.4%) 16 (21.1%) 1,841 (11.3%) 1,441 (7.3%)

18-59 I 39 (51.3%) 12,409 (76.3%) 16,272 (82.4%)

60-64 4 (11.1%) 0 ( 0.0%) 281 ( 1.7%) 237 ( 1.2%)

65 & Over 7 (19.5%) 14 (18.4%) 849 (5.2%) 909 (4.6%)

TOTALS 36 76 16,276 19,748 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A and 3, respectively. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

a complete profile of an area's economy and to make forecasts relative to its economic future.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the type of occupations held by persons 16 years of age and older in Pennsylvania changed dramatically from 1980 to 1990. There was a 32% increase in persons employed in managerial or professional specialties and in sales during the period. There was also a corresponding 17.6% decrease in persons employed as operators, fabricators and laborers, and a 4.8% decrease in those employed in precision production, craft and repair jobs. Furthermore, by 1990 56% of all women in the Commonwealth with children under the age of six were part of the labor force, a 57.4% increase from 1980. (While specific employment data for 1998 is not available, it seems unlikely that any of these trends have changed. In fact if anything, the number of persons employed in service-oriented jobs has probably continued to grow while the

IV- 13 number of manufacturing positions undoubtedly continues to decline.)

When compared to 1980 Census figures, the 1990 employment statistics for Worth Township and Centre County also show a shift in the types of jobs held by the area’s civilian labor force. Although not as dramatic as the decline experienced statewide, both the Township and the county weathered reductions over the decade in the percentage of persons employed in the manufacturing industry. The percentage of workers employed in the manufacturing industry in Worth Township decreased from 17.2% in 1980 to 16.6% in 1990, and over the same ten year period, the percentage of Centre County’s manufacturing jobs declined from 17.8% to 13.4%. Both jurisdictions also experienced an increase in the percentage of the workers employed in retail trade from 1980 to 1990. In the Township, the percentage increased from 14.2% to 14.3%, and for the county, retail trade jobs grew from 15.2% in 1980 to 17.5% in 1990. The largest increase in Township employment however seems to have been in the construction industry, which increased from 7.6% to 16.1 % during the 1980’s. Throughout the county the greatest increase appears to have been in the professional and service-related fields, including health care and education, where more than 5,300 additional persons were employed by 1990. The largest decrease in type of employment in the Township occurred in the agriculture and mining industries, where the percentage of persons employed declined from 11.3% in 1980 to only 4.0% by 1990.

The top five categories of employment for Worth Township residents in 1980 were: educational services (18.0% of the total employed civilian labor force); retail trade (14.2%); durable manufacturing (13.4%); agriculture and mining (1 1.3%); and construction (7.6%). By 1990, the top five Township employment categories had changed to: educational services (21.4%); construction (16.1%); retail trade (14.3%); durable manufacturing (1 1.l%); and health services (5.5%). Shifts in classifications of employment from 1980 to 1990 were equally interesting when looking at the county as a whole. While the county’s top five classifications in 1980 were; educational services (31.3%); retail trade (15.2%); durable manufacturing (12.6%); non-durable manufacturing (5.2%); and construction (4.0%), they had changed by 1990 to: educational services (28.7%); retail trade (17.5%); durable manufacturing (9.1 %); professional services (6.7%); and health services (5.8%). (See Tables 18 and 19, on pages IV-16 and IV-17, for a breakdown of the 1990 employed civilian labor force by industry and occupation.)

1. Characteristics of the Labor Force

Tables 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 that follow in this Part of the Chapter provide a detailed accounting of several characteristics of the Township’s and county’s labor force. The number of workers employed, by industry, in 1990 is presented in Table 18; the number of employed persons, by occupation, for the same time period, can be found in Table 19; the classification of workers in Table 20; the employment status of the area’s 1990 workers, by gender, in Table 21; and the number of families in the labor force with young children in Tables 22 and 23.

* Civilian Labor Force. Bv Industry

Figures in Table 18 (page IV-16) indicate that there were 398 Township residents 16 years of age or older employed as a part of the municipality’s

IV - 14 i civilian labor force in 1990. Numbers for Centre County showed that 57,809 persons over 16 years were part of the 1990 civilian work force countywide.

Of those Township individuals employed in 1990, Table 18 reveals that the majority (21.4%) were working in educational services jobs. Another 16.1% were employed in durable manufacturing, while 14.3% maintained employment in retail trade positions. A similar trend was evident at the county level where 28.7% of all labors were employed in the education industry; 17.5% in retail trade; and another 9.1% in durable manufacturing jobs.

I * Civilian Labor Force. Bv Occupation

Table 19 on page IV-17 provides still further details on the Township and County employed labor forces. This Table presents a breakdown of employment by occupation. Most of the trends established by the data in the previous table are apparent in these statistics as well. As expected, the largest segment of the Township’s labor force is employed in technical, sales and administrative fields (28.4%), followed by those with positions in precision production (21.I%); and 20.1 %working as operators, fabricators, and laborers. Countywide, 31.0% of the employed civilian labor force were employed in technical, sales and administrative support positions; another 30.9% were ‘I categorized as managerial and professional; and 14.9% were service workers. * Labor Force Classifications and Gender of Workers

Still other labor force classification statistics are presented in Table 20 (page IV-18). As shown in that Table, the vast majority of the Township’s 1990 employed labor force (70.8%) were classified as private wage and salary I. workers. Another 27.6% were considered government workers, and just over 11.O% were self-employed or unpaid family workers. Throughout the County, employment numbers were weighted almost exactly the same. A total of ‘I 73.8% of the County’s 1990 workers were listed as private wage and salary employees; 19.6% were designated as government workers; and 6.6% as self- employed or unpaid family workers.

Table 20 also shows that 55.5% of the Township’s 1990 work force was male and 45.5% was female. Percentages for the county3 1990 labor force showed a similar composition. Despite the fact that the number of employed males continues to exceed the number of females in the labor force, it is nonetheless important to note the total number of females that are employed. In Worth Township by 1990 there were 177 women working as part of the municipality’s labor force, more than double the number of women (84) that were employed in 1980.

* Emdovment Status, Bv Gender of Workers

The employment status of Worth Township and Centre County workers is ._ i presented in Table 21, page IV-20. While these statistics confirm that 221 of .I the Township’s male workers were employed in 1990, they also show that 6 IV- 15 TABLE 18

Employed Civilian Labor Force, By Industry * Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth Township Centre County Industry Workers / % of Total Workers / % of Total

Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 14 ( 3.5%) 1,474 ( 2.5%)

Mining 2 (0.5%) 285 (0.5%)

Construction 64 (16.1%) 2,852 (5.0%)

Manufacturing:

Nondurable 22 (5.5%) 2,465 (4.3%) Durable 44 (11.1%) 5,260 (9.1%)

Transportation 11 ( 2.8%) 1,448 ( 2.5%)

Communications/Utilities 5 ( 1.3%) 842 ( 1.5%)

Wholesale Trade 8 (2.0%) 1,121 (1.9%)

Retail Trade 57 (14.3%) 10,138 (1 7.5%)

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 12 ( 3.0%) 2,251 (3.9%)

Business & Repair Services 11 ( 2.8%) 1,795 (3.1%)

Personal Services 20 (5.0%) 1,638 ( 2.8%)

Entertainment & Recreation Services 3 (0.7%) 690 ( 1.2%)

Professional & Related Services:

Health Services 22 (5.5%) 3,355 (5.8%) Educational Services 85 (21.4%) 16,607 (28.7%) Other Professional Services 8 ( 2.0%) 3,871 (6.7%)

1 Public Administration 10 ( 2.5%) 1,717 ( 3.0%)

TOTALS 398 (100%) 57,809 (100%)

* Employed persons 16 years of age or older. 1 .-1 IV- 16 TABLE 19

Employed Civilian Labor Force, By Occupation * Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth Township Centre Countv Occupation Workers / % of Total Workers / % of Total

Managerial & Professional:

Executive, Administrative & Managerial 30 (7.5%) 5,915 (10.2%) Professional Specialty 25 (6.3%) 11,986 (20.7%)

Technical, Sales & Adminis- trative Support:

Technicians & Ret. Support 8 (2.0%) 2,835 (4.9%) Sales 31 (7.8%) 5,641 (9.8%) Admin. Support, Le. Clerical 74 (18.6%) 9,408 (16.3%)

Service:

Private Household 0 (0.0%) 162 ( 0.3%) Protective Service 7 ( 1.7%) 907 ( 1.6%) Other Service 46 (11.6%) 7,517 (13.0%)

Farming, Forestry & Fishing 13 ( 3.3%) 1,466 ( 2.5%)

Precision Production, Craft & Repair 84 (21.1%) 4,684 ( 8.1%)

Operators, Fabricators, & Laborers:

Machine Operators, Assemblers, & Inspectors 17 ( 4.3%) 2,784 (4.8%) Transportation & Mat’l Moving 27 (6.8%) 1,904 (3.3%) Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, & Laborers 36 (9.0%) 2,600 (4.5%)

TOTALS 398 (100%) 57,809 (100%) * Employed persons 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, \, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998. .i IV- 17 ! TABLE 20

Labor Force Classifications & Gender of Workers * Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth Townshir, Centre Countv Workers / % of Total Workers / % of Total

Class of Workers 1 Private Wage and Salary Workers: 282 (70.8%) 42,663 (73.8%)

Government Workers:

Local 15 ( 3.8%) 2,717 ( 4.7%) State 55 (13.8%) 7,862 (13.6%) Federal 0 (0.0%) 752 ( 1.3%) i

Self-Employed Workers 43 (10.8%) 3,584 (6.2%)

Unpaid Family Workers 3 (0.8%) 231 (0.4%) -

TOTALS 398 (100%) 57,809 (100%)

Gender of Workers

Male 221 (55.5%) 31,742 (54.9%) Female 177 (44.5%) 26,067 (45.1%)

TOTALS 398 (100%) 57,809 (100%)

~ * Employed persons 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998. in 1980. 1 .J

IV- 18 men were classified as unemployed, and another 4 were in the armed services at that time. Of the Township’s female workers, 177 were employed and 4 were identified as unemployed. Thus a total of 412 persons, or 69.1% of all Township residents 16 years of age and older were considered part of the municipality’s labor force. At the county level, 1990 Census figures indicate that 31,742 males were employed as part of the civilian labor force, another 1,921 were unemployed, and 230 more were serving in the armed forces. A total of 26,067 women were employed in 1990, another 1,477 were listed as unemployed, and 15 were identified as armed services participants. The County’s labor force therefore represented only 59.3% of those persons over the age of 16 in 1990. The sizeable student population at Penn State is once again responsible for influencing these percentages.

* Families in the Labor Force

Tables 22 and 23 (pages IV-21 and IV-22) illustrate another interesting facet of the area’s employed labor force. Table 22 shows the number of families in the labor force in 1990 with children under the age of 6, and Table 23 presents the information on the number of families with children between the ages of 6 and 17. As indicated, a significant number married couples with children are also employed as part of the area’s labor force. Specifically, 59.2% of the Township’s working couples have children under 6 years of age and 67.9% of these couples have children aged 6 to 17. County-wide, 44.6% of working couples have children under the age of 6, while 59.4% have children between the ages of 6 and 17. Single working parent families account for still more children that must be cared for while their parents work. It appears likely that these numbers will be even higher by the time the census is conducted for the year 2000, as more and more families find it necessary to have a second income to met their financial obligations.

* Place of Work

Although a few residents of Worth Township found it necessary or desireable to work outside of Centre County in 1980 and 1990, the vast majority (above 95% at the time of each Census) apparently were able to find suitable employment within the County. Table 24 (page IV-23) examines work locations for Worth Township and County residents both in 1980 and 1990. Statistics for Centre County as a whole indicate a very similar pattern; less than 7% of the labor force worked outside of the County in 1990. (As noted in Part C of this Chapter, there are a great many job opportunities within the Centre Region which has resulted in one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state.)

2. Education Levels

A community’s education level can also indicate a great deal about the composition of its labor force and can directly impact the number of persons employed or employable. According to a 1990 PA State Data Center publication, entitled, Underernp/opent of Pennsvlvania Workers , education makes the greatest difference in both unemployment and underemployment in the Commonwealth.

IV- 19 1 f

TABLE 21 !

Employment Status, By GenGbr of Norkers * Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth Township Workers / % of Total Workers / % of Total ,

Male Workers

In Labor Force:

In Armed Services 4 ( 1.3%) 230 (0.4%) Civilian

Employed 221 (72.7%) 31,742 (59.0%) Unemployed 6 (2.0%) 1,921 (3.6%) I Not in Labor Force: 73 (24.0%) 19,888 (37.0%)

i TOTALS 304 (100%) 53,781 (100%)

Female Workers

In Labor Force:

In Armed Forces 0 (0.0%) 15 (0.1%) Civilian 1

Employed 177 (60.6%) 26,067 (52.3%) Unemployed 4 ( 1.4%) 1,477 (2.9%) i Not in Labor Force: 111 (38.0%) 22,322 (44.7%)

TOTALS 292 (100%) 49,881 (100%) i * Persons 16 years of age and older

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, ..1 Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, lnc., February 1998.

IV - 20 .I I 1 1

TABLE 22

Families in Labor Force with Children Under Age 6 Worth Township & Centre County

1990

,. Worth Township Centre County Families / % of Total Families / % of Total

Married CouDles

Both Parents in Labor Force 45 (59.2%) 3,574 (44.6%) Only Father,in Labor Force 23 (30.3%) 2,916 (36.4%) Only Mother in Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 131 ( 1.6%) Neither Parent in Labor Force 0 ( 0.0%) 176 ( 2.2%)

No Spouse Present

MaI e-H ea d ed :

In Labor Force 5 (6.6%) 225 (2.8%) Not in Labor Force 3 (3.9%) 44 (0.5%)

Female-Headed:

In Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 571 ( 7.1%) Not in Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 385 (4.8%)

TOTALS 76 (100%) 8,022 (100%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

IV - 21 I

TABLE 23

Families in Labor Force with Children Age 6-17 Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth TownshiD Centre County Families / % of Total Families / % of Total

Married CouDles

Both Parents in Labor Force 91 (67.9%) 8,294 (59.4%) Only Father in Labor Force 25 (18.7%) 3,444 (24.7%) Only Mother in Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 157 (1.1%) Neither Parent in Labor Force 5 (3.7%) 194 ( 1.4%) No SDouse Present

Male- Hea ded :

In Labor Force 4 (..3.0%) 380 (2.7%) Not in Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 16 (0.1%)

Female-Headed: I In Labor Force 9 (6.7%) 1,208 (8.7%) .. Not in Labor Force 0 (0.0%) 260 (1.9%)

TOTALS 134 (100%) 13,953 (100%) !

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

IV - 22 TABLE 24

Place of Work Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth Township Centre County

1980 1990 1980 1990 Location Workers / % of Total Workers / % of Total

Worked Within County 195 370 38,719 53,400 of Residence (96.1%) (95.4%) (92.8%) (93.5%) Worked Outside County 8 14 3,023 3,327 of Residence (3.9%) ( 3.6%) (7.2%) ( 5.8%) (but within PA) Worked Outside PA NK 4 NK 387 ( 1.0%) (0.7%)

TOTALS 203 * 388 * 41,742 * 57,114 *

NK - Not Known * Not complete sampling of all workers.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A & 3, respectively. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

IV - 23 The publication further concludes that high school drop-outs experience unemployment and underemployment rates four times higher than college graduates and that high school drop-outs are ten times more likely than college graduates to be discouraged unemployed workers -- persons so disheartened that in macy case they cease to look for work.

According to figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, Worth Township significantly increased its percentage of high school graduates between 1980 and 1990, as well as the number of persons involved in post-secondary education programs. Table 25, on page IV-25, shows that of the Township’s residents 25 years of age or older, 71.6% at received at least a high school diploma in 1990, as compared to only 54.7% in 1980. And, by 1990, 31.3% of those graduates had completed some level of post-secondary education, 44.0% of which received an associate’s degree or higher. Only 26.0% of the Township’s 1980 high school graduates had undertaken post-secondary education.

Looking at Centre County as a whole, 83.6% of its 1990 residents aged 25 or older has completed high school, an increase from 75.8% in 1980. And, just over 58.6% of those individuals who had graduated from high school by 1990 also received at least some additional higher education, as opposed to 51.5% in the early 1980s. By 1990, 75.4% of those pursuing education beyond high school had completed their programs of study and been awarded degrees.

Table 26 (page IV-26) presents some details on the levels of educational attainment for each of the municipalities in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region in 1990. According to these figures, at least 70% of the population over 25 years I of age in each of the municipalities had graduated from high school by 1.990. Overall, 74.4% were high school graduates, with many going on to obtain BA or other professional degrees. Although the Region’s percentage of high school graduates was lower than the percentage countywide, it was almost identical to the 74.7% experienced across the Commonwealth in 1990.

E. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC FORECASTS

The economic outlook for the region in the next ten years looks very strong. As pointed out in the discussion of regional economy in Part A of this Chapter, all indications are that the number of jobs in the area will continue to grow during this period. Despite some concern that national and international economies may be slowing down, there has been no evidence of such a downturn locally. Among the fastest growing occupations will likely be service-oriented jobs (with emphasis in education, health care and retail sales) and professional specialties work (primarily for technology-based companies). Advanced information and high-tech businesses are also likely continue to thrive locally. 1 Growth has occurred in the incubator programs run by the Center for Business and Industry of Centre County and the Moshannon Valley Partnership, as both the Business and Technology Center and the Enterprise Center I facilities are close to full. And recent initiatives by Penn State through its new College of Information Sciences and Technology, its Office of Research Commercialization, and its New Business Development off ice will further serve to accelerate economic development. Available land area to accommodate

IV - 24 TABLE 25

Education Levels * Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth Township Centre Countv

1980 1990 1980 1990 Level of Attainment Persons / % of Total Persons / % of Total

Less Than 9th Grade 73 45 6,941 4,033 (22.0%) (8.7%) (12.8%) (6.1%)

High School - Non-Graduate 77 102 6,159 6,838 (23.3%) (19.7%) (1 1.4%) (10.3%)

High School - Graduates (Diploma Only) 134 255 19,844 22,957 (40.5%) (49.2%) (36.7%) (34.6%)

Some College, No Degree 19 65 6,266 8,OI 6 (5.7%) (12.5%) (11.6%) (12.1%) I I Associate Degree 15 3,072 ( 2.9%) ( 4.6%)

Bachelor’s Degree 28 19 5,631 11,413 (8.5%) (3.7%) (10.4%) (16.7%) I Graduate or Professional Degree 17 9,206 10,327 (3.3%) (17.1%) (15.6%)

TOTALS 331 51 8 54,047 66,356 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

* Residents 25 years of age or older.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 & 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A & 3, respectively. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998.

IV - 25 TABLE 26

Education Levels * Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

Less Than High At Least High At Least Prof. or School Grad. School Grad. ** BA Degree Grad. Degree

TownshiDs

Huston 180 (23.4%) 589 (76.6%) 148 (19.2%) 70 (9.1%)

Taylor 101 (20.8%) 384 (79.2%) 53 (10.9%) 14 ( 2.9%)

Union 158 (26.4%) 440 (73.6%) 67 (1 1.2%) 20 ( 3.3%)

Worth 147 (28.4%) 371 (71.6%) 34 ( 6.6%) 17 ( 3.3%)

Borouahs

Port Matilda 135 (30.2%) 312 (69.8%) 35 ( 7.8%) 15 ( 3.4%)

Unionville 25 (25.5%) 73 (74.5%) 14 (14.3%) 5 (5.1%)

TOTALS 746 (25.6%) 2,169 (74.4%) 353 (12.1%) 141 ( 4.8%)

* Residents 25 years of age and older.

** 1990 PA High School graduates - 74.7%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1998. !

! IV - 26 . .f industrial growth, coupled with the area’s well-educated work force should serve as an attractant for businesses looking to locate or expand in this part of the state.

A recent survey conducted by the Chamber of Business and Industry also reveals that there is optimism for continued growth of the region’s labor force. According to the results of this survey of more than 50 of the county3 companies, an additional 1,300 jobs may be created in the region in the next three years. The survey also found that about 75% of the responding companies plan to expand their facilities in Centre County. Fewer than 10% indicated they would relocate or expand outside of Pennsylvania.

While the overall employment picture looks strong for the future, seven out of 10 employers surveyed in the Chamber of Business and Industry poll indicated they expect to have difficulties hiring new employees. Most of the expected problems relate to skills training. Computer programming and usage top the list of skills needed, followed by mechanical and engineering skills. Those surveyed also identified local government cooperation on zoning and taxing issues and road improvement projects as important matters for future emphasis.

F. FISCAL ANALYSIS

Worth Township’s Annual Audit Reports from 1995, 1996, and 1997 were condensed by Landplan, Inc. to present of report of the community’s financial condition, and are included in Appendix C of this Plan. Tables 27 - 30 provide an assessment of the figures contained in the Audit Reports.

1. Taxes and Other Revenues

A listing of the major revenues collected by the Township in 1995, 1996 and 1997 is presented in Table 27 below.

Although not always responsible for the generating the largest portion of the Township;s revenue, tax income still accounts for a substantial share of the municipality’s revenue. As Table 27 shows, the Township receives income from four taxes: real estate taxes; real estate transfer taxes; earned income taxes; and per capita taxes. Revenue realized from each of these taxes remained fairly consistent over the three year period, averaging better than $68,000 per year.

Miscellaneous revenues, including monies from fines, interest, liquid fuels allocations, and grant or loan sources, account for the remainder of the Township’s income. The largest of these revenues is usually derived from the Township’s annual liquid fuels allocation -- monies provided by PADOT to assist the municipality with local road maintenance. As shown in Table 27, the amount of these monies remained very consistent from 1995 to 1997, averaging just over $33,000 annually. All loans and grant monies received by the Township and interfund transfers are also included in this category of the community’s revenue. (A detailed comparison of the Township’s revenues by type of fund can be found in Table 30, on page IV- 31 of this Chapter.)

IV - 27 TABLE 27

Major Revenues Worth Township

1995 - 1997

Revenue Source 1995 1996 1997

Taxes $ 60,022 $ 71,545 $ 72,766

Real Estate Tax 11,915 22,237 23,041 Real Estate Transfer Tax 4,534 4,575 5,414 Earned Income Tax 41,075 42,185 42,119 Per Capita Tax 2,498 2,548 2,192

Miscellaneous Revenues $ 150,362 $ 67,273 $ 62,777

Fines & Forfeits $ 2,635 $ 1,823 $ 2,834 Interest 744 462 258 Intergovernmental Revenues 4,795 15,083 19,168 Liquid Fuels Allocation 32,142 33,174 33,813 Departmental Charges 2,764 1,211 3,645 Miscellaneous Revenues 107,282 1,200 3,059 interfund Operating Transfers --- 14,320 _--

TOTALS $ 210,384 $ 138,818 $135,543

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1995,and Worth Township Audit J Reports, 1996 and 1997.

2. Cash and Investments Cash and investments for the three years.from 1995 to 1997 are illustrated in I Table 28 below. As indicated, the Township’s overall fund balances fluctuated during this period from $36,423in 1995 to $15,280at the end of 1997 as monies were used to help pay for numerous road projects and to balance the budget. 1

IV - 28 TABLE 28

Cash and Investments, By Fund Worth Township

1995 - 1997

Fund 1995 1996 1997

General Fund $ 34,502 !§ 23,253 $ 9,973 Liquid Fuels Fund 1,921 1,190 5,307

TOTALS $ 36,423 $ 24,443 $ 15,280

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Communities, 1995, and Worth Township Audit Reports, 1996 and 1997.

3. Expenditures

Each of the Township’s major expenditures from 1995 to 1997 are itemized in Table 29 on page IV-30. While comparatively small amounts were spent on general government, public safety, and employee insurances over the three year period, the largest portion of the municipality’s budget each year was spent of street and highway projects. According to the figures in Table 29, nearly 75% of the Township’s total budget in was spent on roads in 1995, 50.9% was spent in 1996, and 1997,35.1% of the budget was used for road work and road-related expenses.

4. Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures

Table 30 (page IV-31) presents a comparison of all Township revenues and expenditures by type of fund and concludes with a comparison of total income and expenses for each of the three years in the tracking period. As these figures illustrate, total expenditures exceeded income in both 1995 and 1996, while the municipality finished 1997 with a balance of $6,000. Despite appearances to the contrary, sufficient capital was available in reserve funds or in investments to offset all costs not covered by incoming revenues during 1995 and 1996, and the Township was able to successfully balance its budget for each of the reporting years. (See also Audit Summaries in Appendix C for a complete illustration of the Township’s financial status from 1994 to 1997.)

Tables 31 and 32 (pages IV-33 and IV-34) present a per capita comparison of revenues & expenditures and taxes, respectively, for each of the municipalities in

IV - 29 TABLE 29 Major Expenditures Worth Township

1995 - 1997

Expenditure 1995 1996 1997

General Government

Administration $ 20,136 $ 16,292 $ 18,053 Tax Collection 786 1,148 I,294

Health & Welfare $ 800 $ 364 $ 400

Public Safety

Fire $ 7,725 $ 7,397 $ 8,840 Planning & Zoning ------716

Streets & Highways * $ 29,107 $ 75,267 $ 10,168

Culture & Recreation (Libraries) $ 100 $ 100 $ 100

Interest $ 2,620 $ 7,024 $ 4,859

Miscellaneous Expenditures ** $ 14,727 $ 17,389 $ 18,013

Capital Outlay Expenditures $ 134,026 *** $ 23,047 $ 31,694

TOTALS $ 210,027 $ 148,029 $ 129,426

* May also include related equipment purchases. ** Includes insurance premiums, employee withholdings, & other employee benefits. *** Included $127,412 project to resurface Sunnyside Hollow Road.

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1995, and Worth Township Audit Reports, 1996 and 1997. 1 IV - 30 . _..1 .J TABLE 30 Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures, By Fund Worth Township

1995 - 1997

1995 1996 1997

General Fund

Revenues * $ 177,975 $ 91,149 $ 101,730 Expenditures 189,223 104,478 94,138

FUND TOTAL $ (11,248) $ (13,329) $ 7,592

Liauid Fuels Fund

Revenues * $ 32,409 $ 47,669 $ 33,813 Expenditures 33,141 43,551 35,288

FUND TOTAL $ (732) $ 4,118 $ (1,475)

TOTALS

Revenues * $ 210,384 $ 138,818 $ 135,543 Expenditures 222,364 148,029 129,426

DIFFERENCE $ (11,980) $ 6,117

* Not including available cash ti investments. (See also Financial Audits in Appendix C.)

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1995, and Worth Township Audit Reports, 1996 and 1997.

IV - 31 the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region and for Centre County as a whole in 1994 and 1995. Although somewhat misleading because a sizeable loan for road construction work was included in Worth Township’s 1995 figures, the comparison nevertheless does show that each resident of the Township accounts for a considerable portion of the community’s revenue as well as its expenditures. And, while the Township’s per capita revenues and expenditures were lower than the county as a whole in 1994, by 1995 they exceeded the county averages in both categories. On the other hand, per capita taxes in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region in 1994 and 1995 were considerable less in each of the Region’s municipalities than those levied countywide, with the exception of Union Township.

5. Tax Base

Although real estate taxes accounted for only 1520% of the total revenues collected in Worth Township in 1996 and 1997 (see Table 27), they are nonetheless an important source of income because they are a tax component that could be affected by land use decisions.

Real estate tax rates are based on the “mil”, which is equivalent to $1.00 for each $1,000 of assessed property value. Separate millage rates are established by the Township, the County and the applicable School District (in this case, the Bald Eagle Area School District) in order to generate sufficient funds to operate each entity.

In 1994 Centre County underwent a complete reassessment of its real estate. As a result, assessed property values throughout the county increased from $250 million to 1.9 billion. Likewise, the Township’s assessed property values jumped from 1.4 million in 1994 to 13 million in 1995. Even though the assessed value of the County’s real estate increased substantially after the reassessment, state law prohibits the counties and municipalities from raising real estate taxes more than 5% for the first taxing year after a reassessment. (School districts are limited to a maximum of 10% during this period.) Therefore, millage rates had to be adjusted by the County, all of the County’s municipalities, and each of its school districts to reflect the change is assessed property valuations. (After the first year there are no yearly limits for the three taxing bodies.)

As a result of the reassessment, the Township adjusted its millage rate from 8 mils in 1994 to .890 mils in 1995. And, in order to generate additional revenue to help offset anticipated expenditures, the rate was increased to 1.75 mils in 1996. (Table 27 shows that an additional $1 1,000 was generated in real estate revenue in 1996 as a result of this increase.) Table 33 (page IV-35) shows the value of the I Township’s assessed real estate and the millage rate assigned for that property from 1993 to 1997. \ Generally speaking, it appears that the Township can afford its present level of expenditures. However since there are limited excess or reserve funds remaining in any of the municipality’s accounts, major new projects or increased municipal services will likely require another increase in real estate taxes or the receipt of grant monies to satisfactorily fund. Careful budget planning will need to

IV - 32 TABLE 31

Revenues and Expenditures Per Capita * Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1994 & 1995

Revenues Per Capita ExDenditures Per Capita

1994 1995 1994 1995

Townshim

Huston $ 125.67 $ 119.38 $ 114.83 $ 90.66

Taylor 146.30 206.37 105.42 280.53

Union 174.57 208.25 225.36 187.54

Worth 177.91 296.73 I I 8.53 296.23

Borouahs

Port Matilda $ 179.97 $ 193.02 $ 147.04 $ 183.66

Unionville 476.49 450.45 170.00 471.10

Centre Count!, $ 254.61 $ 249.61 $ 229.82 $ 240.18

* 1994 & 1995 population based on estimates published by the U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Division, November 1997.

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1994 & 1995.

IV - 33 TABLE 32

Taxes Per Capita * Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1994 & 1995

1994 1995

TownshiDs

Huston $ 75.02 $ 78.95

Taylor 65.70 72.67

Union 100.47 104.94

Worth 85.24 84.66

Borouahs

Port Matilda $ 73.91 $ 71.67

Unionville 71.36 67.19

TOTALS $ 77.83 $ 80.02

Centre County $ 99.25 $ 103.26

* 1994 & 1995 population based on estimates published by the U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Division, November 1997.

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and I Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1994 & 1995. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., March 1998.

IV - 34 continue in the future to avoid major impact on Township residents and tax payers.

TABLE 33

Assessed Property Values and Millage Rates Worth Township

1993 - 1997

Year Assessed Real Estate Values Millage Rate

1993 $ 1,355,000 8 mils

1994 $ 1,389,000 8 mils

1995 $ 13,077,000 .890 mils

1996 $ 13,092,000 1.75 mils

1997 $ 13,437,930 1.75 mils

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and Worth Township Audit Reports, 1996 and 1997.

IV - 35 CHAPTER 5 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES i

CHAPTER 5

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The quality and accessibility of a community's facilities and services -- its fire and police protection, educational institutions and opportunities, recreational facilities, health and medical facilities, and overall municipal services, are all important factors in evaluating an area's ability to attract future residents or new business and industry, as well as retain its current tax base.

A range of facilities and services are currently available for Worth Township residents. Although many of the services are not provided directly by the Township, and most of the facilities are not physically situated within the Township boundaries, most are readily available or are located within reasonable proximity of the community. This Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will review and inventory those facilities and services available to Worth Township citizens.

A. GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

1. Township Government

Worth Township does not own or maintain a municipal building. Until construction of a Meeting Room at the Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company site in 1998, arrangements were made with the Bald Eagle Area School District to hold monthly meetings of the Board of Township Supervisors in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Port Matilda Elementary School, located along Locust Street in Port Matilda. Township Planning Commission meetings were also convened once each month in the Elementary School facility. Both groups now meet at the Fire Hall.

Worth Township owns 4.074 acres along Shady Dell Road in the municipality which was acquired in 1971. A Maintenance Building, to house the Township's road maintenance equipment, tools and machinery was constructed on the site in the early 1990s. In addition to providing space for storage and repair of the municipality's maintenance equipment, the "Shed" also provides shelter for the I i community's salt and anti-skid supplies, used for winter road upkeep. Projects for the future include enlarging the attached "anti-skid shelter" to accommodate greater volumes of material. i The Township employs one full-time workman to maintain the municipality's 17.04 miles of local streets and roads, and see that all necessary repairs are made I to the community's road equipment and machinery. The Township Roadmaster .J oversees the scheduling and supervision of the road worker, and is himself a part- i time municipal employee who works on various road projects as needed. The Township employs a part-time Secretary/Treasurer to handle administrative details .i and clerical tasks. Since no office space is available at the Maintenance Building, 1 the Secretary operates from an office in her home, and is available to Township ._1 v-1 residents by phone or fax.

Township-owned equipment includes:

* a 1993 Chevy 12,000 GW"T"-Tag Dump Truck with a 9-foot snow plow and a tailgate spreader and auger; * a 1990 Caterpillar 416 Backhoe/Loader (purchased used in 1994);

* a AW Super 88 Grader; and

* a Ford 231 Tractor with sickle-bar mower (purchased used in 1996).

The Township also owns several gas trimmers, chain saws, shovels and other tools necessary to maintain its roadways. All are stored at the Municipal Maintenance Building.

2. County Government

Centre County provides a variety of governmental services for county residents from the County Courthouse, on High Street in Bellefonte, and from offices in the Willowbank Building at 420 Holmes Street, Bellefonte. A list of county agencies and offices, and their locations are provided below. (Most of the county's court-related and recordkeeping facilities are situated in the courthouse, while its other service-providers are primarily located in the Willowbank Office Building.) Transportation services (van services) are located in Milesburg.

Centre Countv Courthouse

Central Court (courtroom facilities) Court Administrator Court Reporters District Attorney Judges' Chambers Law Library Orphan's Court Probation Services (Adult and Juvenile) Prothonotary Public Defender Sheriff

Willowbank Office Buildinq

Office of Aging Assessment Children and Youth Services Commissioners' Conservation District Controller

v-2 Cooperative Extension Domestic Relations Drug and Alcohol Abuse Elections Emergency Communications (9-1-1) Emergency Management Services Human Resources Human Services Planning Maintenance Marriage License Bureau Mental Health/Mental Retardation Planning Recorder of Deeds Records Management and Storage (Willowbank Annex) Register of Wills Tax Claim Treasurer Veteran's Affairs Voter Registration

B. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION

1. Police Protection

No local or municipal police service is available in Worth Township. As a result, residents rely on the Pennsylvania State Police stationed at the Philipsburg Barracks. A total of 22 officers and four civilians are housed in this facility, which I is located along U.S. Route 322, 3 miles east of Philipsburg and 10 miles northwest of Port Matilda. Officers from the Philipsburg Barracks not only are responsible for providing police protection for Worth Township, they also cover nine other municipalities in the western portion of Centre County, including Halfmoon, Huston, Rush, Taylor, and Union Townships, and Philipsburg, Port Matilda, South Philips- burg, and Unionville Boroughs. State Police officers stationed at Wingate handle calls for the eastern half of the County. Both stations are part of Troop G, headquartered in Hollidaysburg, south of Altoona. (See Map 5 on the next page for an illustration of the service area of the Philipsburg State Police.)

State Police randomly patrol throughout Worth Township and all of their service area, and respond to calls for assistance as they are received. They can be summoned by calling Centre County Communications at 9-1-1, or by dialing the Barracks directly. Calls received by County Communications are either

I transferred to the Police Station, or telecommunicators contact the Barracks with details. Officers and police units are then dispatched by personnel from the Station. (Dispatching services are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.)

One officer at the Philipsburg Barracks has been designated a part-time .1 Community Relations Officer to work with area citizens, schools, and social or civic i groups in promoting overall community awareness and safety programs, on an as- , ,) v-3 .1 Centre County, PA

PHILIPSBURG STATE POLICE

SERVICE AREA

S requested basis. Recent activities include helping to organize a Bike Rodeo in Port Matilda, arranging for youth fingerprinting opportunities, hosting tours through the Philipsburg Station for youth groups, and participating in educational programs for school students. Two full-time Community Relations Officers are also available from the Hollidaysburg Station to assist with or arrange training or educational programs throughout Troop G’s seven-county service area.

According to Sgt. Michael Patrick, calls for police assistance over the years throughout the Station’s service area have increased as the population of the municipalities has grown, and as the volume of traffic on U.S. Routes 220 and 322 has risen. A summary of police incidents in Worth Township and Port Matilda in 1997 shows a total of 416 calls for service in these two communities, 236 in Worth Township and 180 in the Borough. At least 214 of these incidents (or more than half of all calls in the two municipalities) were traffic-related: accidents, traffic control, violations, or providing assistance to motorists. All of the incidents in the two municipal jurisdictions added together accounted for 12.44% of the Philipsburg Sub-Station’stotal number of calls for the year. (Table 34 on the next page breaks down the number and types of incidents which occurred in Worth Township and Port Matilda Borough in 1997.)

2. Fire Protection

The volunteers of the Port Matilda Fire Company provide fire protection for residents of Worth Township. The Company was organized in 1929 and maintains a general membership of 2 91 volunteers, 35 or more of whom are actively involved. The Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company also contracts to provide fire protection for Port Matilda Borough, Halfmoon Township, Huston Township, and Taylor Township, all in Centre County, and provides mutual aid assistance to other area volunteer fire companies. (See Map 6 on page V-7 for an illustration of the Company’s service area.) All 9-1-1 calls for assistance and emergency dispatching are handled by the Centre Communications Center, located in the Willowbank Building in Bellefonte. An $8 million upgrade of the county’s basic emergency 9- 1-1 system currently underway promises to enhance dispatching capabilities by automatically identifying callers by address as well as telephone number. The expansion will also provide each fire, police, and ambulance unit with radio equipment that will allow direct communications between all emergency response units.

The Company’s response area is diverse in nature, containing farms, rural housing developments, and small businesses, as well as undeveloped mountain and valley areas, requiring the volunteers to be skilled in various fire-fighting techniques. Presently the service area covers 63 square miles, including a 17- mile stretch along U.S. Route 220 and 4 miles of U.S. Route 322 from Port Matilda towards Philipsburg, and serves more than 4,300 residents. Construction of Interstate 99 through the area will likely increase the Company’s customer base and the demand for fire-fighting services.

The Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company is housed along the north side of US. Route 220, just east of the intersection of that Route with U.S. Route 322, in

v-5 TABLE 34

PA State Police Incident Report Worth Township 8t Port Matilda Borough

1997

Type of Incident Worth Township Port Matilda Borough

Accidents

Hit & Run 5 4 Traffic 28 8 Other 27 16 Assault

Harassment 5 5 Other 0 4 Burglary

General 5 2 False Alarm 7 10

Cancelled Call 3 4 Community Relations 1 1 Criminal Mischief 5 3 Disorderly Conduct

General 1 Harassment by Communication 3 Death (Accidental) Drug & Narcotics Fire Marshall Lost & Found Missing Person (Runaway) Other

Attempt to Locate 2 1 Debris or Animal on Roadway 22 2 Disturbance 2 3 Domestic 0 2 Other 26 18

Police Information 1 3 Referred to Other Agency or Police 6 5 Request for Assistance (Motorist) 46 15 , Request for Assistance (Other) 8 8 Sex Offense (Indecent Exposure) 1 1 Theft 4 16 Traffic Control 2 36 i Traffic Violations (Other) 23 4 Underage Drinking 1 0

TOTALS 236 180 (“A of Sub-station Total) (7.06%) (5.38%)

V-6 PORT MATILDA VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY

& AMBULANCE SERVICE AREA

October, 1997

CENTRE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE the Borough of Port Matilda. (See Map 8, the Public Facilities Map, on page V- 26A, for location.) All but one piece of the Company's fire-fighting apparatus and related equipment is kept in this station, including: i * a 1998 International 4900 Tanker/Pumper featuring a 1750 gpm Darley Pump, an 1800 gallon booster tank, deck gun, Class A foam System, three 10-inch Newton quick dumps, 5- and 3-inch supply hose, 1.75 inch attack lines, and three Self-contained Breathing Apparatuses (SCBA);

* a 1994 Freightliner FL-70 (Medium-Duty) Rescue Truck equipped with three SCBA's, a Holmatro hydraulic rescue tool system, a 25 KW generator, Air Cascade System, 50 ton air bag rescue lifting system, stokes litter, first aid supplies, portable tripod lighting system, chain saw, hazardous materials absorbents and other rescue equipment;

* a 1987 Bruco "Attach" Pumper; * a 1973 Dodge Brush Truck, equipped with racks, Indian tanks, and other brush or forest-fire fighting equipment; and

* a 1940 antique Ford Fire Engine used for parades and special community events.

Since December 1997, the Company's 1968 Ford "Supply" Pumper has been housed in the Halfmoon Township Municipal Building, which serves as a satellite fire station. The first of its kind in Centre County and central Pennsylvania, this station improves service and reduces response time to this part of the Company's service area.

According to Keith Reese, Fire Company President, the 1968 "Supply" Engine will be the next piece of equipment to be replaced, at a possible cost of $240 ,000. I

Communities served by the Port Matilda volunteers provide financial support i for the Fire Company. Each makes an annual contribution, based on its population, to help the Company meet its basic needs. A Municipal Government and Fire Company Partnership has also been organized to facilitate communication between the firefighters and the municipalities they serve and to develop an equitable method of sharing the costs associated with providing fire protection, including the provision of worker's compensation. Even with municipal contributions, the volunteers must hold numerous fund-raising events to meet their $1 25,000 budget. Municipal commitments in recent years have provided about 30% of the funds needed, with Company members raising the remaining 70%. Major fund-raising activities include weekly bingo games, monthly community dinners, and the annual fireman's carnival, held the week after the 4th of July.

In 1998, the Fire Company received a $50,000 grant from the Department of Community and Economic Development to renovate the fire station's engine area and expand the building to include a new kitchen, bathroom facilities and a

V-8 meeting room.

Records for 1997 shot that calls for service totalled 117, or about one call every 76 hours. Fire and motor vehicle accidents accounted for 73 (or 62%) of the calls within the service area, and the remaining 44 responses included 19 mutual aid calls, 3 utility pole fires, and numerous calls for general assistance. (See Table 35 below for a breakdown of the fire and motor vehicle accident calls by municipality.)

TABLE 35

Responses to Fire & Motor Vehicle Accidents, By Municipality Port Matilda Fire Company Service Area

1997

Worth Halfmoon Port Taylor Huston Response Twp. Twp. MatiIda Twp. Twp.

Structure Fire (17) 1 5 6 1 4

Brush Fire (5) 1 2 0 1 1

Vehicle Fire (7) 1 2 0 0 4

Motor Vehicle Accident (44) 13 3 4 11 13

TOTALS 16 12 10 13 22

~~~

Source: Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company, 1997 Call Statistics, April 1998.

C. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

The Port Matilda Ambulance Service and their community volunteers provide ambulance services for the residents of Worth Township and the surrounding area. Although technically considered a part of the Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company, the Ambulance Service is operated by a separate Board, and maintains separate quarters. The Ambulance Service is located along U.S. Route 220, across the highway from the Fire Station on property owned by the fire department. its primary service area is the same as that of the local fire-fighters, and includes the Borough of Port Matilda, and Worth,

v-9 i

Halfmoon, Huston and Taylor Townships. Mutual aid agreements also require them to assist other service-providers in State College, Philipsburg, and Milesburg when needed.

The Ambulance Service has two fully-certified, State-licensed emergency vehicles to provide service to their constituents. Both units, one purchased in 1995 and the other in 1996, are owned by the Fire Company, and are equipped with Basic Life Support (BLS) apparatus. Automated External Defibrillators (AED’s) have also been added to each unit to provide a more immediate level of patient care. Advanced Life Support (ALS) assistance is provided by paramedics from the Centre Community Hospital, or from Moshannon Valley EMS in Philipsburg. As with the fire service, all ambulance units are dispatched by Centre County Communications, via its 9-1-1 system.

Revenue to sustain the Ambulance Service is derived from third-party billings (or user fees), membership drives, and donations. No financial allocation is provided by Worth Township, or any of the other service-area municipalities.

D. HEALTH CARE

1. Medical Services

While there are no primary or secondary medical facilities in Worth Township, there are several excellent hospitals or medical centers within a reasonable distance. Centre Community Hospital, 12 miles south of the Township, along U.S. Route 322 in State College is the closest. This facility provides a wide range of medical services, including a birthing center, a cardiac rehab and wellness center, a cancer center, a sleep disorder lab, and orthopedic programs. In addition to the services available at its East Park Avenue hospital building, the Centre Community Hospital provides off -site medical services from the Centre Medical Sciences Building, located next to the Hospital, and from the Bellefonte Medical Arts Building on Allegheny St. in Bellefonte.

In addition to Centre Community Hospital, the Philipsburg Hospital and its neighboring Geisinger Medical Center Philipsburg, located 12 miles north of Port Matilda, just outside of Philipsburg; the Altoona and Mercy Hospitals located southwest of Worth Township in Altoona, and the Tyrone Hospital situated west of the Township, also offer diagnostic and health care services.

2. Nursing Homes/Retirement Centers

The Maplewood Manor Personal Care Home is the only facility located in Worth Township providing care for the region’s elderly population. This State- licensed facility is located along the north side of U.S. 220, in the eastern end of the municipality. (See Map 8 for location.) I

Other personal care or retirement homes in the area include: Cherish House ? in Blanchard; Christine’s Personal Care Home in Tyrone; Darlington House in State 1. College; Eagle Valley Personal Care Home in Milesburg; Hollidaysburg Veterans Home in Hollidaysburg; Lutheran Retirement Community (The Oaks) in Pleasant

v-10 J Many other colleges or universities are also located within this radius, including Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Lycoming and Penn Colleges in Williamsport, Lock Haven University in Lock Haven and Clearfield, Juniata College in Huntingdon, Penn State Altoona in Altoona, and the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Business and trade schools in the area include: South Hills Business School in State College, Altoona School of Commerce in Altoona, Altoona Hospital School of Nursing in Altoona, Empire Beauty School in State College and Williamsport; Altoona Beauty School in Altoona, and Pruonto’s Hair Design Institute in Altoona.

5. Libraries

A wide variety of library facilities are available to Worth Township residents, including the Centre County Library and its affiliate branches (the General Library Collection and Historical Museum in Bellefonte, the Holt Memorial Library in Philipsburg, the Aaronsburg Public Library in Aaronsburg, and the Centre Hall Library in Centre Hall), the Schlow Memorial Library in State College, the Tyrone- Snyder Public Library in Tyrone, and the Huntingdon County Library in Huntingdon. In addition to these facilities, the Centre County Library also operates a Bookmobile for county residents. This service is available at various locations throughout the County Monday through Saturday and includes a bi-weekly stop at the Port Matilda Baptist Church.

G. PARKS, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. AND CULTURAL. RELIGIOUS. & SOCIAL ACTlVlTl ES

The availability, accessibility and variety of recreational opportunities, as well as cultural, religious and social activities, are important in maintaining an area’s population base, and can significantly affect its future growth. In this case, even though Worth Township has no municipal recreational facilities within its borders, nor does it accommodate many cultural features, the following listing illustrates how broad a range of recreational, cultural and social opportunities are available within Centre County.

1. Local Parks

Worth Township has no municipal park or recreation facilities within its borders. Residents of the Township, particularly the youth, use the recreational facilities available in neighboring Port Matilda. There are currently two facilities in . the Borough, its IO-acre Community Park at the western edge of town, and the 3.5-acre Recreation Area adjacent to the Port Matilda Elementary School. (See Map 8 for location of these facilities.)

Over the years, various playground equipment and ball fields have been located in the both the Park and Recreation Area, and the Borough, along with the help of various non-profit and community-based organizations, continues to upgrade and improve facilities. A $15,000 materials-only state grant was received I’ in summer 1997 to upgrade the baseball fields at the Community Park which are used by the Teener, Legion and County League teams. The project included

v - 20 TABLE 37

Public and Private School Enrollments Bald Eagle Area School District

1990

Municipality ----- Pre-Primary ----- Elementary/High School Public Private Public Private

TownshiDs

Boggs 32 442 15 Burnside 2 73 0 Howard 7 181 5 Huston 14 222 8 Snow Shoe 12 308 0 Union 5 174 0 Worth 13 152 4

Borouclhs

Howard 157 Milesburg 174 Port Matilda 114 Snow Shoe 140 Unionville 30

TOTALS 101 34 2,167 49

* Persons 3 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., April 1998.

4. Post-Secondarv Educational Omortunities

A broad selection of excellent post-secondary educational schools exists within a 50-75 mile radius of Worth Township. The largest and closest is the University Park Campus of Penn State University in State College. Founded in 1855 as an agricultural college, Penn State has grown to a world-renowned learning and research institution. Covering 4,767 acres, the University Park .L Campus is home to more than 40,000 graduate and undergraduate students, .I 2,100 faculty, and 9,400 employees. v-19 additional students. With a rated capacity of 800 and an enrollment of less than 400, an increase in the number of participating students should not trigger a need for expansion of this facility in the near future.

Courses of study available at the Vocational/Technical School include: cosmetology; heavy equipment operation and repair; auto body and auto technology; health occupations; computers and robotics; environmental sciences; carpentry; masonry; visual communications; human services; and precision metals.

3. Private Schools

Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 1990 Census indicates that 83 students from the Bald Eagle Area School District’s service area were enrolled in private schools at that time: 34 in pre-primary facilities and 49 in elementary and high school programs. Most were enrolled in some form of church-affiliated educational institution. Overall, this enrollment had minimal effect on the District, as private schools accounted for only 3.5% of BEA’s total student population (2,351) in 1990. As might be expected, with the number of private day care and kindergarten programs increasing in the area, 25.2% of the District’s pre- primary students were registered at non-public facilities, while only 2.2% of the elementary and high school pupils attended private schools. Table 37 on the next page provides a breakdown of public and private school enrollments, by municipality, for the BEA School District in 1990.

To date, no Charter Schools have been organized or approved for operation in the Bald Eagle School District, although several are operating in the State College Area School District. Although some students who presently attend BEA Schools could choose to enroll at charter schools, the impact of such shifts is expected to be minimal.

Area private school facilities in 1997 included:

* Centre County Christian Academy - Bellefonte * Children’s House Montessori - State College * Country Christian Pre-School - Port Matilda * Grace Lutheran Pre-School/Kindergarten - State College * Montessori School of the Nittany Valley - Bellefonte * Mt. Nittany Christian School - State College * Mt. Nittany Pre-School - Lemont * Our Children’s Center Montessori - Lemont * Our Lady of Victory Church School - State College * Park Forest Montessori School - State College * Red Satchel Montessori - State College * St. Andrew’s Pre-School - State College * St. John’s Catholic School - Bellefonte

* St. Paul’s Christian Pre-School - State College I * State College Friends School - State College * Village Pre-School - State College * Wonderland Pre-school and Kindergarten - State College

v-18 renovation began in 1998 at Port Matilda Elementary. (Plans for this project include expanding the 35 year-old school’s library and computer facilities, upgrading the multi-purpose room, installing a new geothermal heating and cooling system, and replacing the structure’s roof.) In 1996, Clarence Elementary, located in the Village of Clarence in Snow Shoe Township, was consolidated with Snow Shoe Elementary, in the Borough of Snow Shoe, to form Mountaintop Area Elementary. The original Snow Shoe Elementary had to be doubled in size to accommodate all of the students, and today it is delivering cost-effective education for the District’s northernmost reaches. No other construction, renovation, or consolidation plans are being proposed or even considered by the School District at this time. Once renovations are complete at the Port Matilda facility, the District is satisfied that each of its buildings will be able to satisfactorily provide for the Area’s students well into the next decade.

From a curriculum standpoint, the Bald Eagle Area School District is also attempting to stay current and respond to changing technologies and student needs. For example, computer labs have been installed in all of the elementary schools, and the High School recently upgraded its computer/data links with fiber connectivity. intensive reading programs are being emphasized at the elementary level, and a wide range of vocational/technical educational programs are offered for high school students. (See Part 2 of this Section for details of the Vocational/Technical Program.)

The level of education achieved by Worth Township residents in 1980 and 1990 as compared to Centre County as a whole is presented in Table 25 on page IV-25 of this Plan. While these numbers are not representative of the entire school district, they show a significant portion of the Township’s population 25 years of age or older (71.6%) had received at least a high school diploma by 1990, an increase from 54.7% in 1980. And, by 1990, 31.3% of those graduates had received some level of post-secondary education. County-wide, 83.6% of the 1990 population over the age of 25 had completed high school, up slightly from 75.8% in 1980, and 58.6% of all high school graduates sought and received higher education. Thus, even though the level of education of Township residents is less than the County as a whole, it is obvious that the Bald Eagle Area School District in its attempt to provide quality education that meets the needs of its communities is having an impact and is narrowing the gap for Worth Township residents.

2. Vocational/Technical Education

Excellent vocational/technical training is also available for students in grades 10-12 from the Bald Eagle Area School District. This alternative form of education is offered in cooperation with the Penns Valley and Bellefonte Area School Districts. Classes are held at the Centre County Area Vocational/Technical School, located I on Harrison Road in Pleasant Gap. Enrollment figures for 1995-1996 show that 368 students were participating in the school’s various programs of study; 255 of

I them male, 113 female. Numbers for the current school year show similar attendance, with just under 75% of enrollment coming in equal parts from the Bald i Eagle and Bellefonte Area Districts, and the remaining 25% coming from Penns Valley. The Vocational/Technical facility also has plenty of room to accommodate

V- 17 below illustrates the enrollment fluctuations experienced at each of the District's schools from 1996 to 1998.

TABLE 36

Bald Eagle Area School District Enrollment * 1996 through 1998

School Facility June 1996 May 1997 March 1998

Howard Elementary 123 130 114 Wingate Elementary 637 600 635 Port Matilda Elementary 251 232 235 Mountaintop Area Elementary 245 253 252 Jr./Sr. High School 1,053 1,073 1,103

TOTALS 2,311 2,288 2,339

* Public School Enrollment Only

Source: Bald Eagle Area School District, March 1998.

Although Worth Township, as well as several of the other municipalities situated in the Bald Eagle Area School District, may experience some residential growth over the next 10 years as a result of the 1-99 construction project, that population increase may not immediately create a negative effect on the School District. At present, the occupancy of each of the school facilities is less than the building's "rated" capacity. Figures provided by District Superintendent Daniel F. Fisher indicate that Port Matilda Elementary School has a rated capacity of 473 students, and the Junior/Senior High School is rated to accommodate 1,609 students. The number of students actually attending Port Matilda Elementary \ I represents less than 50% of the facility's rated capacity, and in the case of the I , Junior/Senior High School, only 68% of the building's potential student capacity is being utilized. According to Mr. Fisher, each of the District's buildings could accommodate a 10-20% increase in students without difficulty.

While student capacity was not of immediate concern to the School District in the early to mid-l990s, the age and condition of its school buildings was identified as an issue. In an attempt to continue to offer quality education for its students, the Bald Eagle Area School District set forth an ambitious plan to i f modernize and upgrade each of its structures. Wingate Elementary was renovated .. .. 4 t in 1992, the Junior/Senior High School was improved in 1993, Howard Elementary is currently undergoing rehabilitation, and a major cosmetic and mechanical V- 16 '3 -qLLentre Y Coun-cy,rA

BALD EAGLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICE AREA

MAP 7

0 5 10 15

October, 1997

CENTRE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE couples to locate within its municipal borders as a means of retaining its tax base. The value of a respected, well-rounded school system cannot be over-emphasized or should not be underestimated.

The Bald Eagle Area School District provides elementary and secondary instruction and supports a cooperative vocational-technical learning program with the Penns Valley and Bellefonte Area School Districts. Specific details of the area’s public school system, as well as an indication of some of the private educational opportunities available, are presented below. 1. FGblic Schools (K throuah 12) In general, the Bald Eagle Area (BEA) School District is located in the Bald Eagle Creek Valley of northcentral Centre County, but it also extends north to the Clearfield and Clinton County lines to include Snow Shoe and Burnside Townships. More specifically, the 338.2 square mile school district serves 12 municipalities in Centre County, including the Boroughs of Howard, Milesburg, Unionville, Port Matilda, and Snow Shoe, as well as Howard, Boggs, Union, Huston, Worth, Snow Shoe and Burnside Townships, making it the largest school district in area in the County. (See Map 7, page V-15, for an illustration of the School District’s service area.) Much of the District is rural and undeveloped, and its overall population density is the lowest of the school districts in the County. U.S. Census Bureau population statistics from 1990 reveal that 12,368 people, or 36.6 persons per square mile, reside within the BEA District.

Classes for the District’s student body are held in four elementary schools and one junior/senior high school building located throughout the District’s service area. Elementary facilities include: Howard Elementary, situated in the Borough of Howard and serving the easternmost portion of the District; Wingate Elementary, located in the village of Wingate, just west of Milesburg Borough and serving the central segment of the District; Port Matilda Elementary, located in the Borough of Port Matilda and covering the District’s western regions; and Mountaintop Area Elementary in Show Shoe, serving the northernmost reaches of the District. Each of these schools serves students in kindergarten through sixth grade. The Junior/ Senior High School, along U.S. Route 220 in the Village of Wingate, immediately adjacent to the Wingate Elementary School, accommodates grades 7 through 12.

School District records indicate that by March 1998, the BEA District had a total student enrollment of 2,339 pupils in grades K through 12. Slightly less than 1,250 students were enrolled in the four elementary facilities, accounting for about 53% of the entire District enrollment, and the remaining 1,100 students (or 47% of the student population) were registered at the Bald Eagle Area Junior/Senior High School. Although total enrollment figures for the past 5 or 6 school years have fluctuated somewhat, the District’s overall student population has remained relatively stable. Enrollment figures from January 1992, for example, indicate that 2,394 students were attending BEA schools. That number had decreased by 55 students by March of 1998. Although the number of students in the District during this six-year period declined by 2.3%, the figures for 1998 represent an increase of 51 students over the total number of pupils enrolled in May 1997. Table 36

V-14 PA Department of Health PA State Health Center

Housing

Centre County Housing Authority (Rental Subsidy Program) Habitat for Humanity Housing & Community Development

Mental Health/Mental Retardation

Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) Centre County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Counsel House Nittany Valley Rehabilitation Hospital (Health South) Skills of Central PA, Inc. Strawberry Fields, Inc.

Preanancv Services

Birthright, Inc. i Catholic Social Services Centre Countians for Choice Centre Region Crisis Pregnancy Services Childbirth Education Association, Inc. Family Planning Services La Leche League

Senior Citizens

Apprise - Medicare/Medigap Counseling Assisted Living Services, Inc. Centre County Office of Aging Retired Seniors Volunteer Program (RSVP) Senior Citizen Centers (Bellefonte, Centre Hall, Centre Region, Penns Valley, Philipsburg, & Snow Shoe)

, TransDortation Services

Centre County Office of Transportation (Van Services) I Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA)/Centre Lines (Public Bus Service) 1

F. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES i The quality and variety of a community’s educational programs can play an important role in the stability and future of an area, as well as the age of its population. It will be crucial for Worth Township that the Bald Eagle Area School District continues to maintain a competent public school system if the Township wants to attract young

V-13 Alcohol & Drua Abuse

Alcoholics Anonymous Centre County Drug & Alcohol Program Comprehensive Recovery Care Inc. Counseling Services inc. Hub Centre Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Children

Big Brothers/Big Sisters Child Development & Family Council of Centre County Headstart Hemlock Girl Scout Council The Boy Scouts of America YMCA (Bellefonte, Philipsburg, & State College) Youth Services Bureau

Emplovment Services

Centre County Office of Employment Security Development Center for Adults Job Club New Choices Private Industry Council of Centre County Youth Employment Services

Financial Aid/Clothina/Food

Community Action, Inc. (Clothing) Salvation Army (Clothing) Centre County Board of Assistance (Financial) Social Security Administration (Financial) Food Bank of State College (Food) Food Stamps (Food) Meals on Wheels (Food) ' WIC (Women, Infants, Children) (Food)

Health and Medical

American Cancer Society American Heart Association American Lung Association American Red Cross Blindness and Visual Services Easter Seal Society Medicaid Medicare

v-12 Gap; Moshannon Heights in Philipsburg; Outlook Pointe in State College; Pine Ridge Manor in Philipsburg; Renaissance Residential Elderly Care in State College; Salem Hill Haven in Spring Mills; The Inn at Brookline Village in State College; and Whispering Pines in Bellefonte.

Area nursing homes include: Anthony House at Foxdale Village in State College; Centre Crest Nursing Home in Bellefonte; Epworth Manor United Methodist Home for the Aging in Tyrone; Fairways at Brookline Village in State College; Presbyterian Home of Moshannon Valley in Philipsburg; Susque-View Home in Lock Haven; and University Park Nursing Center in State College.

Numerous independent housing facilities are also available in the region for senior citizens and disabled persons including: Addison Court in State College; Bellaire Courts in State College; Brockerhoff House in Bellefonte; Centre Estates in State College; Crestside Terrace in Bellefonte; Foxdale Village in State College; Governor’s Gate Apartments in Bellefonte; Mt. Nittany Residences in State College; Park Crest Terrace in State College; Philipsburg Towers in Philipsburg; and Windsong at Brookline Village in State College.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Health records for 1989, there were 465 beds in three nursing homes in Centre County at that time. By 1997 the number of nursing homes in the County had grown to five and the number of beds had increased to 665. Records from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare indicate that in 1992 there were 11 personal care homes in Centre County providing a total capacity of 369. By 1997 there was space for at least 41 0 persons in 12 personal care facilities in the County.

E. SOCIAL AND HUMAN SERVICES

Social and human services for Worth Township residents are available through the State, the County, and numerous private agencies. Many federally or state-funded programs for financial assistance are also available for citizens of the municipality. Although Township residents may need to travel to Bellefonte or State College to apply for such assistance, it appears that the community’s social and human services needs are being met by the available programs. A listing of the major social service providers/support organizations follows.

Abuse/Assault

Centre County Office of Aging Centre County Domestic Relations Child Abuse Hotline Children & Youth Services of Centre County Parents Anonymous Rape Crisis Hotline Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Hotline Women’s Resource Center (Centre County)

v-11 construction of a concession stand, paving of the picnic pavilions, and installing flush toilets. Underground wiring, new bleachers and new playground equipment were also installed, and a new fence was erected around the ballfield to replace the one destroyed by the flood in January 1996.

Further, in late 1997, a $15,312 materials-only Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Grant Application was filed with the state requesting financial aid to assist the Borough, the Port Matilda Youth Baseball Association, and various community volunteers to improve the Little League (T-ball, Minor and Major Divisions) and Girls Softball Team fields at the Elementary School site. In addition to support from the community, this application also received endorsement from the Worth Township Supervisors, County Planning Office and the Bald Eagle Area School District, which leases the acreage in question to the Borough. Although the original application was not funded, a revised request for $20,000 for renovation of the ballfields was approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in April 1999.

2. State Parks. Forests and Game Lands

Black Moshannon State Park, located in Centre County’s Rush Township, is situated along PA Route 504, midway between Philipsburg and Unionville. The Park covers more than 3,400 acres, including the 250-acre Black Moshannon Lake. The Black Moshannon Division of the Moshannon State Forest surrounds the Park, and a portion of the Forest’s southern border protrudes into northern Worth Township.

The lake at Black Moshannon provides opportunities for fishing, boating and swimming. A sand beach is within walking distance of several picnic areas. Family camping and organized youth group tent camping areas are available, and 13 rustic and five modern vacation cabins can be rented during the summer. A 16- mile trail network is also available for foot hiking.

Winter recreational opportunities at Black Moshannon State Park include I! cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and ice fishing. Over 3,000 acres of this Park are open for hunting, trapping, and the I training of dogs, from fall archery deer season through March 31 of each year. Common game species include deer, wild turkey, bear, grouse and squirrel. The adjacent Moshannon State Forest, which covers a sizeable area around the Park, is also open for hunting.

In addition to Black Moshannon, six other State Parks, State Picnic Areas, and State Forests in Centre County offer a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. These facilities include:

* Bald Eagle State Park (Liberty Township) - a 5,900-acre facility for picnicking, fishing, swimming, boating, and camping.

v - 21 .J * McCall Dam State Park (Miles Township) - an 8-acre site, primarily for picnicking and fishing.

* Penn Roosevelt State Forest Picnic Area (Harris Township) - 43 acres offering picnicking, fishing and camping. * Poe Paddy State Forest Picnic Area (Haines Township) - 10 acres with picnicking, fishing and camping opportunities.

* Poe Valley State Park (Penn Township) - a 620-acre facility, offering a full range of outdoor recreational experiences, including picnicking, fishing, swimming, boating and camping. * Sproul State Forest (Burnside, Snow Shoe, Boggs and Curtin Townships) - large facility located in Clinton County, offering boating, fishing opportunities in wilderness trout streams, 83 miles of hiking and horseback riding trails, 5.5 miles of cross-country skiing trails, and 260 miles of snowmobile trails.

State Game Lands provide hunting for deer, bear, turkey, grouse, and other animal species. Game Lands completely or partially situated within Centre County include:

* State Game Lands # 33 (Rush Township) - 16,580 acres.

* State Game Lands # 60 (Rush Township) - 7,240 acres.

* State Game Lands # 92 (Howard, Curtin & Boggs Townships) - 5,171 acres.

* State Game Lands # 100 (Burnside & Snow Shoe Townships)- 19,372 acres.

* State Game Lands # 103 (Union & Boggs Townships) - 8,994 acres.

* State Game Lands # 176 (Halfmoon & Patton Townships) - 6,956 acres.

* State Game Lands # 295 (Walker Township) - 12,860 acres.

3. Campa rounds

* Bellefonte KOA (Marion Township) - 135 campsites, 96 with electric and water, 35 with sewer hook-ups. Available activities include swimming and fishing.

* Seven Mountains Campground (Potter Township) - 50 campsites, 40 with i electric and water.

* Snow Shoe Park (Snow Shoe Township) - 60 campsites, all with electric and water. Recreational opportunities include swimming and picnicking.

* Fort Bellefonte (Marion Township)

v - 22 i 4. Other Recreation

* Tussey Mountain Ski Resort (Harris Township) - 2 beginner, 4 intermediate and 2 advanced slopes; 2 bars and 1 chairlift; 550 foot vertical drop; snowmaking, ski school, ski shop, rentals, night skiing, cafeteria, restaurant, lounge, and daycare facilities. * Golf courses can be found at Toftrees and at Penn State University.

* Golf driving range - located in Rush Township, south of Philipsburg, along U.S. Route 322. * Keystone Gliderport - located in Julian, this facility offers year-round glider rides along Bald Eagle Ridge.

5. Festivals and Annual Events

History and fun come together for County residents at several annual fairs, festivals and events. Many serve not only as major local functions, but also as significant tourist attractions for the region. Good food, fun, and family-oriented activities and entertainment are generally the major attractions. A few of the larger events are listed below.

* Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts - the second-largest celebration of its kind in the state, the festival attracts more than 200,000 visitors each July for a week of arts and crafts, demonstrations, top-name entertainment, lively children’s activities and tasty foods.

* Bellefonte Arts and Crafts Fair - held the third Friday and Saturday in August to showcase the work of local artists. * Ag Progress Days - the region’s agricultural industry is recognized each August with this family-oriented gathering. Educational exhibits, research tours, machinery demonstrations, and livestock and crop production information and clinics are just a few of the offerings available at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural research Center, 9 miles southwest of State College on PA Route 45. * Centre County Grange Fair - also an excellent family-oriented event held annually which recognizes the contributions made by area’s agricultural industry. This event is held the last week of August in the Village of Centre Hall.

* Nittany Antique Machinery Steam Engine Days - this annual event is held in September at Penn’s Cave and attracts visitors and locals alike. * Bellefonte Victorian Christmas - an annual December event featuring old- fashioned decorations, crafts, period costumes and a grand ball.

* Memorial Day in Boalsburg - home of the first Memorial Day.

V - 23 * People’s Choice Arts & Crafts Show - held annually in Boalsburg. * Fourth of July Celebrations - community fireworks displays throughout the County and at Beaver Stadium. * Port Matilda Firemen’s Carnival - held annually the week after the Fourth of July, this fund-raising event provides family-oriented entertainment for residents of Port Matilda and neighboring municipalities.

6. Reliaious Facilities

There are at least 12 churches of various denominations situated in and around Worth Township. Each plays its own role in the community and serves a different segment of the region’s population. Several other religious sects and faiths are located beyond the immediate area surrounding Worth Township. Local churches include: * Bald Eagle Baptist Church - Martha Furnace, Huston Township

* Bald Eagle Presbyterian Church - U.S. Route 220, Port Matilda

* Berean Bible Fellowship Church - Race Street, Unionville

* Black Oak Chapel & Cemetery - U.S. Route 322 North, Worth Township

* Brookside Wesleyan Church - Bush Hollow Road, Julian

* Church of God - Laurel Run Road, Worth Township * Gray’s United Methodist Church - Halfmoon Township * Julian United Methodist Church - Julian * Martha United Methodist Church - Ardery Hollow Road (Huston Township)

I * Port Matilda Baptist Church - Main Street, Port Matilda

* Port Matilda United Methodist Church - Church Street, Port Matilda

* Unionville United Methodist Church - U.S. Route 220, Unionville

A Camp Meeting facility is also located in Worth Township on the north side of the intersection of Reese Hollow Road and West Mountain Road.

7. Museums. Historic Sites. Cultural Facilities and Unique Natural Features Museums, historic sites, cultural facilities or natural features and other points of interest in and around Worth Township include: 1 j v - 24 .J * Beaver Stadium - home of the Penn State Nittany Lion football team; the stadium seats more than 97,000 fans. * Bellefonte Historical Railroad Society - Bellefonte Train Station.

* Boa1 Mansion/Christopher Columbus Museum & Family Chapel - Boalsburg: 16th- century chapel owned by Columbus family, now held by descendants, the Boa1 family.

* Bryce Jordan Center - state-of-the-art convocation and events center opened in 1996 by Penn State University; serves as home for men’s and women’s basketball teams, and hosts numerous events, including concerts, commencements, trade shows, and a variety of intercollegiate athletic events.

* Centre County Library and Historical Museum - Bellefonte: emphasizes local history and houses Spangler Genealogical Collection.

* Centre Furnace Mansion/Centre County Historical Museum - State College: newly restored mansion at old ironworks.

* Curtin Village - located between Milesburg and Howard: restored ironmaster’s mansion, charcoal-fired iron furnace, and worker village replica.

* Earth & Mineral Sciences Museum & Art Gallery - University Park: displays fossils, minerals, gems, and art.

* Frost Entomological Museum - University Park: exhibits preserved specimens, photographs and models of insects.

* Happy Valley Friendly Farm - found along U.S. Route 322 in Potter Township. * Indian Caverns - located in Franklin Township, Huntingdon County, along PA Route 45.

I, l1 * McCoy Natatorium - University Park: featuring four pools, this complex hosts swimming and diving competitions and offers lessons, as well as lap and recreational swimming for individuals and clubs, in addition to Penn State students. A new fitness center now overlook the indoor pools in this facility. * Mount Nittany Vineyard & Winery - Harris Township: located north of PA Route 45, near the Village of Linden Hall, three miles east of Boalsburg.

* Palmer Museum of Art - University Park: features three galleries with changing exhibits, lectures, and film series.

* Pasto Agricultural Museum - University Park: a tribute to pioneer ingenuity and craftsmanship. * Penn’s Cave - along PA Route 192 (Brush Valley Road) in Gregg Township, 5

V - 25 miles east of Centre Hall. * Penn State Agricultural Arena - University Park: located along Park Avenue, immediately north of Beaver Stadium, this facility hosts numerous agricultural events throughout the year.

* Penn State Ice Pavilion - University Park: includes two indoor, year-round ice skating surfaces, public sessions and skate rentals, hockey and figure-skating programs, hourly ice rentals, lessons and party/meeting room.

* Pennsylvania Military Museum - Boalsburg: history of Pennsylvania’s military participation.

* Recreation Hall - University Park: this arena displays Penn State sports memorabilia, and hosts classes, concerts and commencements, as well as various intercollegiate athletic events. * Scotia Range - Ferguson Township: shooting range for rifles, pistols and shotguns. * Woodward Cave - Haines Township: located south of PA Route 45, 5 miles east of Millheim.

V - 26 CHAPTER 6 = PUBLIC UTILITIES i

CHAPTER 6

PUBLIC UTILITIES

The range, capacity and cost of public utilities available in a community also play a role in determining on area’s desirability, both from a residential standpoint and as a location for commercial or industrial development. Specific details regarding the utilities available in Worth Township are presented in this Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.

A. WATER SUPPLY

No public water supply system is owned or operated by Worth Township for its residents. However, a few Township households located near Port Matilda Borough are served by the Borough’s Municipal Water System. Properties immediately northwest of the Borough, along U.S. Route 322, and a few northeast of the community, along U.S. Route 220, are the only Township residents to receive this service. All others must rely on private wells, springs or other sources for their water. (See Table 38 on the next page for a breakdown of water sources for Worth Township, Port Matilda and the other municipalities in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region. See also Map 9, on page VI- IA, for an illustration of the service area of the Port Matilda Water Works.)

According to records from the Port Matilda Borough Water Works from December 1994, this system has a total of 236 connections: 218 residential, 15 commercial, and 3 classified as other. An estimated 679 people are served by the system.

Water is supplied to the system by three wells located southeast of the Borough, on Bald Eagle Mountain in Worth Township. Each of the wells is piped to a chlorination facility and then to storage. Water is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. Flow to Borough users is by gravity from the storage tank. Even though there is no emergency power source to operate the wells in the event of a power outage, there is a 72-hour supply in storage for emergency use. Sufficient water storage is also available for fire protection purposes.

Demand on the system averages 60,000 gallons per day, although source yields estimate that the system is capable of yielding 150,000 gallons per day. Normally, 219,000 gallons of treated water are kept in the system’s storage tank.

No major problems have arisen with the system over the past decade, but in 1991, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resource (now renamed the Department of Environmental Protection) suggested that the Borough Water Works should develop an operations and maintenance plan and an emergency response plan for use with the system. They further suggested that the amount of water pumped could possibly be lowered if meters were installed at the site of each connection and a leak detection program was implemented.

Expansion of the Borough’s water system to serve Worth Township would however necessitate some changes in management or operation of the system. As a Borough-

VI - 1 TABLE 38

Water Supply, by Number of Housing Units Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

Public System/ Dug or Drilled Private Company Well Other

TownshiDs

Huston (504) 36 ( 7.1%) 392 (77.8%) 76 (15.1%)

Taylor (250) 15 ( 6.0%) 197 (78.8%) 38 (15.2%)

Union (373) 5 ( 1.3%) 315 (84.5%) 53 (14.2%)

Worth (313) 12 ( 3.8%) 262 (83.7%) 39 (12.5%)

Borouclhs

Port Matilda (310) 297 (95.8%) 13 ( 4.2%) 0 ( 0.0%)

Unionville (76) 60 (78.9%) 2 ( 2.6%) 14 (18.4%)

TOTALS (1,826) 425 (23.3%) 1,I 81 (64.7%) 220 (12.0%)

Centre Countv (46,195) 37,280 6,975 1,940 (80.7%) (1 5.1 %) ( 4.2%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., April 1998.

VI - 2 owned and operated utility, extension into Worth Township would subject the system to regulation by the Public Utility Commission, and result in additional paperwork. To avoid this level of regulation though, the Borough could form an authority to manage its water supply system. An entirely new Water Authority could be created or the existing Sewer Authority could be converted to a Water and Sewer Authority.

6. SEWAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

No public or municipal sewerage service is available in Worth Township. The vast I: majority of the Township’s residents rely on on-lot, sub-surface systems, such as septic system, cesspools. A few parcels adjacent to the Township’s border with Port Matilda (along U.S. Route 322) may at some point be served by the Borough’s Sewer System. (See Table 39, next page, for a comparison of sewerage service throughout the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region and Map 10, on page VI-3A, for an illustration of the Port Matilda Borough Sewer System service area and system layout.)

The Port Matilda Borough Sewer System is the largest of four community sewer systems serving the Planning Region. Since 1990, sewer service has been provided to Unionville residents by the Mid-Centre County Authority. At that time a force main was constructed from the Authority’s primary service area in Milesburg parallel to Bald Eagle Creek and adjacent to the rail line to serve the community’s 350 inhabitants. In addition, two privately-operated sewer systems serve the 60-unit Martha’s Furnace Mobile Home Park and the Julian Woods development.

Port Matilda’s sewer system, which is operated by the Borough Authority, was brought on line in 1994. By 1996, it was serving 312 EDU’s (equivalent dwelling units) and a population of approximately 669 persons. Even though the system’s collection lines are located almost entirely within the Borough, its Sewage Treatment Plant is situated just east of the Borough line in Worth Township on a 2.58 acre parcel. Effluent from the Plant is discharged into Bald Eagle Creek. While the Plant was originally permitted to discharge only 59,000 gallons per day into the Creek, the facility was re-rated in 1997 to discharge 80,000 gallons per day, to accommodate additional users in the Borough and to prepare for growth which will likely result from construction of the I-99/U.S. Route 322 Interchange just north of the community. The Plant provides tertiary treatment using sequential batch reactors containing activated sludge to renovate sewage from its system. Clarification and filtration is provided by intermittent sand beds. Thus far, the system has functioned well and about as anticipated. With the exception of the increase approved for the volume of its treatment plant discharge, very few adjustments or alterations have been made to the system, nor are others planned at this time. If the system is to be expanded or extended to serve future development inside or outside of Port Matilda, it will be the responsibility of the applicable developers to negotiate with the Authority for service and to pay all costs associated with any extension.

Since the soils and groundwater conditions of an area can impose limitations on the installation and greatly influence the overall effectiveness of individual sub-surface sewage disposal systems, it is important to consider the soils of the Township in the comprehensive planning process. (A more detailed description of each soil classification i is presented in Chapter 9 of this Plan.) . _J VI - 3 TABLE 39

Sewerage Service, by Number of Housing Units Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

Septic System/ Public Sewer Cesspool Other

TownshiDs

Huston (504) 35 ( 6.9%) 429 (85.2%) 40 ( 7.9%) Taylor (250) 1 (0.4%) 242 (96.8%) 7 (2.8%) Union (373) 3 ( 0.8%) 362 (97.1%) 8 (2.1%)

Worth (313) 0 ( 0.0%) 298 (95.2%) 15 ( 4.8%) J

Borouahs

Port Matilda (310) 16 (5.2%) * 287 (92.6%) * 7 (2.3%) * Unionville (76) 63 (82.9%) 13 (17.1%) 0 (0.0%)

TOTALS (1,826) 118 (6.5%) 1,631 (89.3%) 77 ( 4.2%) i

Centre County (46,195) 31,274 14,320 601 (67.7%) (31 .O%) ( 1.3%) 1

i * Port Matilda Borough Sewer System was brought on-line in 1994, and now I serves 2 31 2 EDU’s; essentially the entire community. (See accompanying i narrative for further details.)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., April 1998.

VI - 4 According to the Centre County Soil Survey, issued August 1981, both of the major soil groups in Worth Township present moderate or severe limitations to the functioning of sub-surface sewage disposal systems. Specifically, the Survey indicates that the soils of the Berks-Weikert Association found in the southern half of the Township, present severe limitations for sub-surface sewage systems because of their shallow depth to bedrock. The Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville Soils Grouping, found in the northern half of the Township, also can restrict the effectiveness of sub-surface sewage disposal systems because of slope, depth to bedrock, and an abundance of large stones in several of the soil sub-categories. In addition, the seasonally high water table and moderately slow permeability of the Albrights and Meckesville soils could impose severe conditions for the placement of proper functioning sub-surface sewage systems. (See Map 21 in Chapter 9 for the location of the Township's generalized soils.) Recently, property owners have begun to turn to alternative techniques, such as single family residential small-flow treatment systems or individual residential spray irrigation systems, to find solutions to their sewage disposal problems or allow for the usage of a site with unsuitable soils.

The Township will need to thoroughly evaluate all proposals for future development in the municipality, to verify that the soils of the intended sites will be able to adequately accommodate sub-surface sewage disposal systems, and to avoid proliferation of individual alternative systems. In order to avoid the costs associated with community sewage treatment facilities, future growth in the Township should be directed or guided to areas with suitable soils, and developers should be held responsible for providing proper sewage disposal facilities. In addition to directing new growth to areas with suitable soils, Township officials should encourage the maintenance of existing sewage systems and should consider developing a septage management program to ensure the public health, safety and welfare. (Township officials should contact the Port Matilda Sewer Authority to determine if they would be willing to accept septage from the Township at their treatment plant.) If the failure of existing sewage systems can be prevented through education on system maintenance, and if future development can be controlled through the administration of sensible growth policies, the need for the Township to undertake costly investments in community sewage facilities may be avoided.

C. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/STORM SEWER FACILITIES

Even though Worth Township contains the headwaters of virtually every stream that flows through the municipality, there are no special or sophisticated stormwater management facilities in the Township. Swales and culverts, installed to handle run-off from Township and State roads, are in fact the municipality's only drainage facilities. The Investment in highly sophisticated or expansive storm sewers or stormwater management facilities should not be necessary though because of the Township's limited amount of impermeable surface. Construction of 1-99 and Route 322 could however have a significant impact on stormwater flows in the municipality. Several hydrology studies were completed as part of the 1-99 project to address stormwater issues, and further assessment will likely occur as the Route 322 (Corridor"0") project progresses.

Although the Township does provide drainage ditches along most of its municipally owned roadways, some additional drainage controls of this type may be needed. Even the simplest of grass or rock lined swales could ease road maintenance costs by he\ping

VI - 5 to divert stormwater from road cartways and shoulder surfaces. Furthermore, maintenance of these facilities will be important to assure their intended carrying-capacity.

From a broader perspective, in order to effectively manage drainage or run-off problems, stormwater should be addressed on a watershed basis. Watershed Management Plans and Stormwater Management Ordinances can help to prevent run- off and erosion and sedimentation problems by addressing and regulating activities with the potential to cause these problems. Rather than address only isolated problem areas along a stream or watercourse, such Plans provide an opportunity for a community or communities to look at the bigger picture, identify potential problem sources, and I sufficiently regulate these activities. The Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act (Act 167 of 1978) also recognized the value of managing stormwater on a watershed-wide basis, and as a result assigned the responsibility for development of Watershed Management Plans to county governments. Thus, if serious problems begin to arise within any of the watersheds in Worth Township, or if it appears that significant development in upstream areas may threaten established downstream drainage patterns, Worth Township officials may wish to contact Centre County and request the preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan for the applicable watershed.

D. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Worth Township has no municipally sponsored solid waste collection services in place in the community. All solid waste collection is handled by private agreement/arrangement between property owners and haulers, although Township officials could mandate collection and license haulers within the municipality. The Centre County Solid Waste Authority coordinates the disposal of all wastes that are collected.

As provided in Act 101 of 1988, the Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, the responsibility for solid waste planning rests with County government, rather than at the local level. Although Centre County, in cooperation with its 36 municipalities, had actually adopted its first Solid Waste Management Plan in 1968, a third revision of the document was developed and approved in 1990 to meet the requirements of Act 101. The 1990 Plan divided the County into four watersheds and identified the specific options available for disposal within each watershed. A County Waste Management Ordinance was then adopted by the Centre County Commissioners in 1991 to allow the Authority to effectively implement the 1990 Plan.

Worth Township, along with the Boroughs of Philipsburg, South Philipsburg, and Port Matilda, and Rush, Taylor and Huston Townships, was included in the Moshannon Valley/Port Matilda Watershed in Centre County’s 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan. As such, all waste collected in this area is to be disposed of at either the Greentree Landfill in Elk County, or at the Centre County Transfer Station in College Township. A long-term agreement has been executed by the County with Browning Ferris Industries, Inc., owners of the Greentree Landfill, to guarantee up to ten years of disposal capacity at that facility for the western and northern watersheds in the County.

Recycling collection services were also included in the County’s solid waste management program in the early 1990s. According to statistics provided in the County’s

VI - 6 I

I I 1996 update of the Solid Waste Management Plan, recycling services have been provided to approximately 15,000 residents and 500 commercial establishments within the County, as well as to Penn State. Over 80 recycling drop-off sites have been established throughout Centre County to afford everyone an opportunity to recycle. By 1993, as a result of these efforts, Centre County had successfully reduced its waste stream by more than 27%, exceeding the 25% goal set by Act 101. Unfortunately for Worth Township residents, the recycling drop-off site which had been established in Port Matilda has now been closed, primarily because of misuse. The closest places for residents to recycle now are at the Huston Township Building in Julian and the facility on Ira Lane in the Village of Stormstown in Halfmoon Township. (Curbside recycling, which is mandated by 1 Act 101 for communities with a population of 5,000 or more, does not appear to be an economically feasible option for Worth Township residents at this time.)

E. ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE i j The Allegheny Power Company, through its West Penn Power Company subsidiary, provides electric service to all residents of Worth Township and to most of Centre County. The source of this service is a 230 kilovolt (kv) line extending through the County on a north-south axis. The line passes east of State College and Lemont, through the Rockview Prison grounds, and west of Bellefonte and Milesburg before heading further north. Two primary transformer stations serve the major population centers; one is near Shingletown and serves the State College area, and the other, near Milesburg, serves the Bellefonte area. Another substation is located along Mountain Road in Port Matilda Borough. Continued residential, commercial and industrial growth in the County will undoubtedly require the Power Company to consider expansion plans in order to continue to serving its customer base.

A major General Public Utilities power line runs north and south through Worth Township, paralleling U.S. Route 322. The proximity of this line and its right-of-way to Route 322 could significantly limit the development potential of land situated between the 1-99 Interchange and the Flat Rock area along the roadway.

There are no natural gas services available in Worth Township. The only service of this type in Centre County is provided by Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania and is available in the more densely populated areas of the Nittany Valley, including Bellefonte Borough, the Village of Pleasant Gap, areas of Spring Township along PA Route 144 between Bellefonte and Pleasant Gap, and in the State College area.

I F. TELEPHONE SERVICE ALLTEL Telephone Company, headquartered in Muncy, Pennsylvania, provides telephone and telecommunications services to residents of Worth Township and surrounding areas, including Port Matilda and Warriors Mark Township in Huntingdon ! County. ..i According to company literature, ALLTEL "recognizes the importance of keeping pace with changes in the telephone industry, and has assumed a leading role in the .-1 VI - 7

._J deployment of technology, including innovations such as fiber optics, digital switching equipment and advanced data communications." Thus, it seems they plan to upgrade their equipment and customer service policies as necessary to keep pace with changing technology and demand.

G. MEDIA SERVICES J 1. Newspaper Coveraae

The Centre Dailv Times, based in State College, provides the primary local newspaper coverage for residents of Worth Township. Other news of a more regional nature is supplied by The Proaress, headquartered in Clearfield, and by The Altoona Mirror.

2. Television

Cable television service is available in limited portions of Worth Township and is provided by TCI of PA, Inc., located in State College, and by Country Cable TV, based in Pleasant Gap. (See Map 11 for an illustration of the service area of each cable provider.) Local television stations and broadcasting companies include WPSX-TV, Penn State's member-supported Public Broadcastingstation I originating from Clearfield (Channel 3); Johnstown's WJAC-TV (Channel 6); and Altoona's WAJ-TV (Channel IO). Numerous companies also offer satellite and CATV services for consumers in the Township.

3. Radio

Local radio stations provide a variety of styles of radio coverage for Worth Township residents. For example, country music is available on 94.5 (WFGI), 98.1 (WFGY), and 105.9 (WPHB) on FM, and at 970 (WBLF) on AM. Adult contemporary music can be found on WZWW-FM (95.3), WBHV-FM (103.1), WFBG-AM (1290), and WRSC-AM (1290)' and news, sports and talk shows are aired on WPSU-FM (91.5) and WMAJ-AM (1450). Rock "oldies" can also be found at 97.1 (WQWK-FM), 101.1 (WGMR-FM), and 103.9 (WALY-FM), and WLR-FM (89.9) and WPHB-AM (1260) provide gospel or inspirational listening. WPSU-FM (91.5) is the area's Public Radio station. i

VI - 8 CHAPTER 7 - HOUSING CHAPTER 7

HOUSING

Housing is another important indicator of a community’s likely future growth or decline. The number of housing units, their condition, their occupancy (the ratio of home owner occupants to renters), their value, and their affordability can tell a great deal about a community, and its economic well-being and stability.

Tables 40 - 52 provide insight about housing in Worth Township, the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, and Centre County.

A. HOUSING PROFILE

1. General Housina Characteristics

Table 40, on the following page, presents a comparison of the total number of housing units in each of the six Planning Region municipalities for 1980, 1990 and 1997. As shown, the number of residential units in Worth Township increased over the 17-year period by 56.3%. More specifically, the Township experienced an increase of 66 dwelling units from 1980 to 1990, representing a 31 .O% increase in its housing stock, and from 1990 to 1997 another 54 housing units, or 19.4%, were added to the municipal total. As illustrated in Table 40, Worth Township had the largest percentage of increase of all the Planning Area municipalities from 1980 to 1990, and the Township’s growth in total housing units from 1990 to 1997 was also high when compared to the other communities in the Region. Such growth seems to reinforce the sentiments expressed in the recent Public Opinion Survey that individuals and families enjoy the character and rural setting of the Township, and the quality of life it offers for residents. (A further indication of the Township’s desirability can be seen by reviewing the community’s overall housing occupancy rates presented in Part 2 of this Section.)

Centre County’s total number of housing units also increased dramatically from 1980 to 1997, by 12,906 dwellings, or 32.6%. Slightly more than half of the County’s increase, or 16.8% (representing 6,631 housing units), occurred during the 1980s, primarily the result of the volume of new residential development in the Centre Region. From 1990 to 1997, another 6,275 units (13.6%) were added throughout the County. Once again the largest percentage of increase occurred in the Centre Region, but this time, the second largest percentage of increase occurred in the Upper Bald Eagle Region. While Centre Region increased its housing stock by 16.1%, the increase in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region was 13.1%.

A breakdown of the types of housing units in the Township and throughout Centre County as a whole for 1980 and 1990 is provided in Table 41, page VII- 3. (Exact comparisons from 1980 to 1990 may be difficult, because data was reported differently during the two Census periods.)

VI1 - 1 i

TABLE 40

Total Housing Units Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1980 to 1997

1990 1997 * # of Units/ # of Units/ (1980) % increase from 1980 % increase from 1990

Townships

Huston (422) 532 (26.1%) 585 (10.0%)

Taylor (262) 277 ( 5.7%) 312 (12.6%)

Union (432) 345 (-20.1%) 419 (21.4%)

Worth (213) 279 (31.0%) 333 (19.4%)

Boroughs

Port Matilda (251) 269 (7.2%) 288 ( 7.1%)

Unionville (123) 124 ( 0.8%) 129 ( 4.0%)

TOTALS 1,826 ( 8.0%) 2,066 (13.1 %)

Centre Countv (39,564) 46,195 (16.8%) 52,470 (13.6%)

* Estimated based on Building Permit records.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, August 1982, and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1, June 1992, and Centre County Assessment Office Building Permit Records, 1990-1997, compiled by Centre County Planning Office, 1998. Calculations by Landpian, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 2 TABLE 41

Housing Types, By Number of Units Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990

Worth Township Centre County

# of Units / % of Total # of Units / % of Total Housing Types 1980 1990 1980 1990

Sinclle Familv Units: 26,562 (67.2%)

Detached 167 (78.4%) 21 1 (75.6%) 25,375 (54.9%) Attached 0 ( 0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2,180 ( 4.7%)

MuIt i-f a mi Iv Units : 8,912 (22.5%)

Two to Four Families 5 ( 2.4%) 3 ( 1.I%) 3,334 ( 7.2%) Five or More Families 9 (4.2%) 0 (0.0%) 10,508 (22.8%)

Mobile Homes 20 (9.4%) 65 (23.3%) 2,736 (6.9%) 4,798 (10.4%)

Seasonal 12 (5.6%) * 1,354 (3.4%) *

TOTALS 213 279 36,586 46,195

* Seasonal units are included in the structural totals.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, August 1982, and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 3 Conventional single family homes dominated both the Township and County’s housing supply totals in 1980 as well as in 1990. In both cases in 1980, such housing accounted for approximately three-quarters of all available dwelling units. But by 1990, while slightly more than 75% of the Township’s housing units were identified as single family units, the County’s total in that category had fallen to less than 60%, as the number of multi-family units and mobile homes increased. By 1990, 30% of the County’s housing stock was “multiple family” in nature (an increase of almost 8% from the previous decade), while just over 1% of the dwelling units in Worth Township were classified in that category. Almost a quarter (23.3%) of the Township’s residential units in 1990 were listed as mobile homes, while the number of such units countywide amounted to slightly more than 10%. (Since seasonal dwelling units were not separated out from the structural totals in the 1990 Census, it is realistic to assume that some of the percentages presented for 1990 housing types actually would be lower than shown if seasonal dwellings were subtracted from their totals.)

2. Occupancv and Ownership

According to the 1990 Census, both Worth Township and Centre County enjoyed very high occupancy rates, indicating rather stable population bases. (See Table 42, on page Vll-5.) More specifically, Worth Township’s 93.9% rate of occupancy is exceptional, higher even than the County’s 92.4%, which is also excellent, and almost 3% higher than Pennsylvania’s rate of 91.0%. The Township’s rate of occupancy had been only slightly lower at the time of the 1980 Census, at 89.2%.

The overall vacancy rate for Centre County in 1990 (7.6%) was similar to the Township’s 6.1% rate, and both were lower than the 9.0% rate experienced statewide. Such low vacancy rates are likely responsible for the increase in the number of dwelling units that were built in the County over the last 20 years. Generally speaking, as the demand for more housing increases, the number of units built or created as a result of conversions increases to meet that demand. I From the statistics included in Table 42, it appears that the increase in housing units in Worth Township and throughout Centre County is barely keeping up with the demand. Moreover, the very fact that the Township’s vacancy rate actually decreased by more than 3% from 1980 to 1990 implies that the full demand for housing in the community may not be being met. Unfortunately, higher demand can often lead to increased housing and rental costs, thereby intensifying an , already complex affordability issue. (See also the discussion regarding housing affordability presented in Section B of this Chapter.)

Table 42 also shows that the County’s percentage of renter-occupied housing units was significantly higher than the Township’s rate, both in 1980 as well I as in 1990. While only 15.0% of the Township’s housing units were rentals in 1990, 37.1% of the County’s occupied housing units were inhabited by renters. This variation can be attributed to the large number of Penn State students occupying apartments throughout the County, primarily in the State College area. (Centre County’s 1990 renter-occupied housing rate also exceeded the statewide rate of 26.7%.) Both the Township and County maintained sizeable percentagesof owner-

VI1 - 4 1 1 1 i I I TABLE 42

Housing Unit Occupancy Worth Township & Centre County

1980 & 1990 , Worth TownshiD Centre Countv I 1 Occupancy # of Units / % of Total # of Units / % of Total 1980 1990 1980 1990

I OccuDied Units 1 Owner-Occupied 156 220 21,558 25,531 (73.2%) (78.9%) (54.5%) (55.3%)

Renter-Occupied 34 42 14,564 17,152 (16.0%) (15.0%) (36.8%) (37.1%)

Sub-Total 190 262 36,122 42,683 I

I ) Vacant Units 11 10 2,088 2,069 (5.2%) (3.6%) (5.3%) (4.5%)-

Seasonal 12 7 1,354 1,443 (5.6%) (2.5%) (3.4%) (3.1%)

TOTALS 213 279 39,564 46,195 1 J

i i i Persons Per Occupied Unit 2.83 2.71 2.37 2.54 i I * Includes units listed for sale or rent; those units rented or sold, but vacant; and I other similar unoccupied units. i !

1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, August 1982, and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary . .. i Tape File 1, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998. 1 VI1 - 5 occupied residential units throughout the 10-year period, reaching almost 80% in Worth Township and slightly more than 55% in the County as a whole, by 1990.

According to the 1990 Census, there were more renter-occupied housing units (54.3%) in the Centre Region than owner-occupied units (45.7%). In fact, the same figures show that 76.2% of the dwelling units in State College Borough were renter-occupied, further illustrating the impact of off-campus living by Penn State students. The percentage of renter-occupied housing is typically higher in Boroughs and cities where municipal sewer and water facilities are often available. Centre County appears to be no exception, as renter-occupied housing in Bellefonte in 1990 reached 47.9%; in Philipsburg it was 44.0%; and in Port Matilda 32.3% of the total housing units were renter-occupied even before the municipal sewer system was operational.

Table 42 reveals that there were fewer persons per occupied dwelling in the County in both 1980 and 1990 than there were in Worth Township. And, while the household size decreased from 1980 to 1990 in the Township, it actually increased countywide over the same period, thereby narrowing the difference in County and Township dwelling occupancy numbers. (Once again, it is likely that Penn State students, and their living arrangements, Le. apartments, are responsible for the statistical variations.)

Additional characteristics regarding the tenure of occupied housing units in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region and in the County in 1990 are depicted in Table 43, on the next page. This Table reveals that 80 of the Township’s 220 owner-occupied dwellings (or 36.4%) were two-person units, and another 23.6% (or 52 units) were occupied by four-person households. Countywide, 35.8% of all housing units in 1990 were inhabited by two persons, while three-person units made up the second highest category of occupancy (19.5%). Interestingly, the Township’s 2.7% rate of overcrowding shown on this Table is the highest among municipalities in the Planning Area, and even exceeds the county’s 0.9% rate.

One-third of the Township’s renter-occupied dwelling units were occupied by single persons, and 2.4% of its rental units were considered overcrowded according to the figures presented in Table 44 (page VII-8). By comparison, several of the other Planning Area municipalities accommodated larger rental households, and all of the jurisdictions, except Taylor Township, had higher overcrowding rates. Although the highest percentage of rental units in the County were identified as one and two-person units, the 1990 Census figures also showed an 8.5% rate of overcrowding countywide.

Census figures presented in Table 45, page Vll-9, show that by 1990 more than three-quarters of all of the housing units in Worth Township and throughout most of the Planning Region contained five or more rooms. Less than 25% of all residential units in the Township, and 35% of those located throughout the County, contained fewer than five rooms. It is hard to say if this occurrence is the result of actual market demand, or if it more accurately reflects the desire of builders to accommodate a wealthier clientele.

VI1 - 6 TABLE 43

Tenure of Owner-Occupied Housing Units, By Number of Persons Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

Persons Per Owner-Occupied Housing Unit % Over- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ crowded

Townshits

Huston (378) 74 124 65 65 38 8 4 1.3%

Taylor (229) 34 82 33 55 15 6 4 1.7%

Union (268) 38 72 55 74 23 3 3 1.1%

Worth (220) 34 80 36 52 12 4 2 2.7%

Borouclhs

Port Matilda (176) 33 63 26 39 10 4 1 0.6%

Unionville (106) 29 37 20 11 7 1 1 0.9% ------

TOTALS (1,377) 242 458 235 296 105 26 15 1.5%

Centre Countv (25,531) 4,353 9,137 4,989 4,705 1,703 450 194 0.9%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 7 TABLE 44

Tenure of Renter-Occupied Housing Units, By Number of Persons Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

Persons Per Renter-Occupied Housing Unit % Over- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ crowded

Townshim

Huston (87) 19 22 21 16 80 1 3.4%

Taylor (29) 13 7 6 2 1 0 0 0.0%

Union (42) 13 13 9 5 0 2 0 4.8%

Worth (42) 14 10 8 7 30 0 2.4%

Borouqhs

Port Matilda (84) 29 24 15 9 52 0 6.0%

Unionville (9) 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 11.1% I ------

TOTALS (293) 89 77 62 42 10 4 1 4.1% I

Centre Countv (17,152) 5,719 5,132 3,129 2,000 857 244 70 8.5%

Source: US. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 8 TABLE 45

Rooms Per Housing Unit Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region

1990

------___-___Number of Rooms Per Unit ------

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8+

I Townshim ? Huston (532) 5 18 42 95 121 122 59 42 28 i I Taylor (277) 0 3 10 43 83 58 48 17 15

1 Union (345) 1 2 13 37 100 86 56 29 21 i Worth (279) 3 2 13 44 75 67 35 26 14 i I Boroughs

Port Matilda (269) 0 10 24 47 61 60 27 27 13

I Unionville (124) 0 5 7 20 33 26 12 11 10 I .i ------

i TOTALS (1,826) 9 40 109 286 473 41 9 237 152 101

i I ! Centre County 1,328 2,737 4,848 7,486 7,903 8,240 5,443 4,027 4,183 i (46,195) J

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, i Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

I_i -1 VI1 - 9 -I.._ I A comparison of home heating fuels in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region and in Centre County for 1990 is presented in Table 46, page VII-11. These

Census figures show that in each instance, the highest percentage of housing units I utilized fuel oil for heating in 1990 -- slightly more than 46% of Worth Township households and almost 38% countywide. The use of electricity for home heating is much greater at the County level than throughout the Planning Region, and reliance on other fuels is considerably less. While 34.3% of the county’s homes are heated by electricity, only 16.2% of the homes in the Upper Bald Eagle Region depend on electricity for heat.

3. Aae and Condition of Housina Units

The figures presented in Table 47 (page Vll-12) provide some general information about the age and, therefore, likely condition of the Township and County housing stock in 1997. According to this data, just under 20% of the Township’s dwellings were built in 1939 or earlier, while almost 19% of the County’s residential units were constructed before 1939. Almost 40% of the housing units in Worth Township have been built since 1980, as compared to just over 30% countywide. The largest percentage of housing units in both locales were constructed between 1940 and 1979; 40.8% in the Township, and 51% throughout the County. Some 22.2% of the Township’s housing stock and slightly more than 23% of the total County units are 50 years of age or older. As a general rule, housing units 50 years old or older tend to be in poorer condition than newer structures. Aging plumbing, electrical, and heating systems in such older units can 1 cause them to deteriorate faster than newer construction. Mobile homes also tend to deteriorate faster than other types of housing. From general observation, 1 it appears that many of the older homes in the Township have undergone at-least exterior rehabilitation in the recent past. Thus, it can be stated that the condition of the housing in Worth Township is good to excellent. And, even without having I visually inspected all of the county’s residential units, it seems likely that the same , general statement of condition will apply throughout Centre County. After all, more than one half of all of the dwellings in the County are less than 30 years of age.

i 4. Housina Values I

Tables 48 and 49 provide detail regarding the value of owner-occupied housing units in Worth Township, the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, and in I Centre County as a whole in 1990. As shown in Table 48 (page Vll-l3), there was a considerable difference between the median value of owner-occupied housing units in Worth Township and those located elsewhere in Centre County. More , precisely, the median value of owner-occupied housing units in Worth Township 1 in 1990 was $61,900, while the value for such housing in the County as a whole was $74,700 for the same time period. And, although housing values actually increased by a greater percentage in Worth Township between 1980 and 1990 than they did countywide, the median value of a dwelling in Worth Township is still I $12,500 less than the County median. i . _.I Table 49 (page VII-15) provides owner-occupied housing value information for 1990 for the Planning Area municipalities based on a sample survey of dwellings I VI1 - 10 .I i ill c__, ,___ _.__...... -, < ~ .--.-...... --. . -.._ --.

TABLE 46

Home Heating Fuel s, by ,Number of Occupied Housing Units Upper Bal d Eagle P1 anni ng Reg1 on 1990

(Total ) Gas Electric Fuel Oil Coal /Coke Wood Other

Towns hi PS Huston (465) 3 ( 0.7%) 75 (16.1%) 244 (52.5%) 48 (10.3%) 93 (20.0%) 2 ( 0.5%) Taylor (258) 0 ( 0.0%) 39 (15.2%) 140 (54.4%) 35 (13.5%) 44 (16.9%) 0 ( 0.0%) -5 Union (310) 0 ( 0.0%) 42 (13.6%) 142 (45.7%) 52 (16.8%) 74 (23.9%) 0 ( 0.0%) I --L Worth (262) 7 ( 2.4%) 43 (16.6%) 121 (46.2%) 39 (14.8%) 50.(19.0%) 3 ( 1.0%) 2

Boroucrhs Port Matilda (260) 0 ( 0.0%) 55 (21.3%) 174 (66.8%) 14 ( 5.3%) 17 ( 6.6%) 0 ( 0.0%) Unionville (115) 0 ( 0.0%) 10 ( 9.0%) 71 (61.2%) 22 (19.4%) 12 (10.4%) 0 ( 0.0%)

TOTALS (1,670) 10 ( 0.6%) 270 (16.2%) 889 (53.2%) 206 (12.3%) 290 (17.4%) 5 ( 0.3%)

Centre County (42,683) 6,018 14 ,640 16,092 3,030 2,732 171 (14.1%) (34.3%) (37.7%) ( 7.1%) ( 6.4%) ( 0.4%)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., April 1998. TABLE 47

Age of Housing Units Worth Township & Centre County

1997

, Worth TownshiD Centre Count!,

Age of Construction # of Units / % of Total # of Units / % of Total

1939 or earlier 65 (19.5%) 9,793 (18.7%)

1940 - 1949 9 (2.7%) 2,587 (4.9%)

1950 - 1959 26 (7.8%) 5,543 (10.6%)

1960 - 1969 32 (9.6%) 7,807 (14.9%)

1970 - 1979 69 (20.7%) 10,856 (20.6%)

1980 - 1989 78 (23.4%) 9,609 (18.3%)

1990 - 1997 54 (16.2%) 6,275 (12.0%)

TOTALS 333 52,470

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3, and Centre County Assessment Office Building Permit Records, 1990-1997, compiled by Centre County Planning Office, 1998. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

i .j

..i VI1 - 12 >1 TABLE 48

Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units * Worth Township & Centre County

1990

Worth Township Centre Countv # of Units / % of Sample # of Units / % of Sample

Rancle of Values

Less than $35,000 14 (14.4%) 1,997 (10.5%) $ 35,000 - $ 49,999 10 (10.3%) 2,322 (1 2.2%) $ 50,000 - $ 74,999 48 (49.5%) 5,242 (27.6%) $ 75,000 - $ 99,999 18 (18.6%) 4,383 (23.1%) li $100,000 - $149,999 5 (5.1%) 3,264 (17.2%) $150,000 - $199,999 2 (2.1%) 1,138 (6.0%) $200,000 or More 0 (0.0%) 642 (3.4%) i I ! TOTALS 97 * 18,988 *

1980 1990 1980 1990

Median Value $59,550 ** $61,900. $73,207 ** $74,700. (+ 4.0%) (+ 2.1%)

* Based on sample survey of specified owner-occupied housing units (includes single family homes on less than ten acres with no business or medical office on the property, and excludes mobile homes and units in multi-family structures). ** 1980 figures adjusted for inflation by 1.588%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics, August 1982, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 13 J in each of the communities. In each case, with the exception of Port Matilda Borough, the greatest percentage of residential units in the Upper Bald Eagle Region were valued between $50,000 and $99,999. (According to the table, the majority of homes in Port Matilda had a value of less than $50,000.) By 1990, the table shows that there were a few more expensive residential units in the Region, but not many. In Worth Township, for example, only 7.2% of the owner-occupied homes were valued at $100,000 or more. Countywide, the percentage of units in this category was 26.6%.

Table 50 (page Vll-16) provides additional details on the value of housing units in the Planning Region. This information, compiled from analyzing real estate transfer records from 1990 to 1996, shows the total number of transfers that occurred in each of the municipalities, how many involved transfers of residential property, as well as the average cost or value of those residential conveyances. According to these figures, the value of Worth Township’s residential real estate transfers ranks second highest in the Region, falling slightly below the figures for Union Township.

5. Housina Costs

Statistics presented in Table 51, page Vll-17, show that the average Pennsylvania homeowner (household) in 1990 spent $682 a month, or 20% of his income, for housing, while the average renter spent just over $400, or 26% of his monthly income. (See also Section B of this Chapter for a discussion of housing affordability.) The figures reveal that in the case of home ownership, costs in Worth Township and Centre County were less than or equal to the state average. In fact, Township homeowners actually pay considerably less than households across Pennsylvania, spending $530 a month, or 17.6% of their income for housing. In the County, while monthly housing costs average slightly less ($665) than the state level, the overall percentage of household income used to meet housing expenses was a little higher (20.3%) than the state median.

Renters in Worth Township spent less per month for housing ($275) than was paid statewide. Despite the almost $125 difference in rent, renters in Worth Township actually spent a greater percentage of their income for housing (32.5%) than did rental occupants throughout Pennsylvania. County renters, however, not only paid more than the state average for rent ($448), they also spent a greater portion of their income (31.3%) for housing. (See also Section B, Part 2, of this Chapter for a discussion of housing affordability.)

A comparison of median monthly contract rents from 1980 to 1990 for the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region is presented in Table 52 (page Vll-18). If the numbers in this table are accurate, rents in two of the municipalities, Port Matilda and Union Township, actually decreased over the ten year period. And, of those experiencing rent increases, Worth Township’s overall increase was the second highest, amounting to 26.2% a month over its 1980 figures. (Figures for Union Township may be misleading since there were discrepancies in the area counted as Union Township between the 1980 and 1990 Censuses.)

VI1 - 14 I ,I i

1 1 I TABLE 49

Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, By Number of Units Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region & Centre County

I' 1990

Less than $50,000- $100,000- $1 50,000- More than $50,000 99,999 149,999 199,999 $200J00°

Townships

Huston (195) 66 118 7 4 0 Taylor (108) 49 54 4 1 0

Union (126) 41 79 6 0 0

Worth (97) 24 66 5 2 0

Borouahs

Port Matilda (145) 99 45 1 0 0 Unionville (79) 56 22 0 0 1 - - - - -

TOTALS (750) 335 384 23 7 1 E!i ~~ /I Centre Countv (18,988) 4,319 9,625 3,264 1,138 642

i * Based on sample survey of specified owner-occupied housing units (includes ! single family homes on less than ten acres with no business or medical office on the property, and excludes mobile homes and units in multi-family structures).

1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, compiled by Centre County Planning Office.

~ ..I iJ VI1 - 15 ! i

I !

TABLE 50 i Residential Real Estate Transfers Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region i 1990 - 1996 1 j

Total RE Transfers/ Residential Transfers/ Average Cost/ % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total Resid. Transfer I I

Townships i i Huston 333 (24.7%) 32 (20.5%) $ 70,258.

Taylor 221 (16.4%) 12 ( 7.7%) $ 58,500.

Union 281 (20.8%) 28 (17.9%) $ 75,086.

Worth 270 (20.0%) 19 (12.2%) $ 71,468.

Borouahs

Port Matilda 180 (13.3%) 44 (28.2%) $ 46,956.

Unionville 65 (4.8%) 21 (13.5%) $ 60,971.

TOTALS 1,350 156 $ 62,545.

Source: Centre County Planning Office, Centre County Assessment Office Records, 1990-1996. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., July 1998.

VI1 - 16 TABLE 51

Home Owner & Renter Housing Costs * Worth Township, Centre County & PA

1990

Worth TownshiD Centre Countv Pennsvlvania

~~~

Homeowner

With a Mortaaae 65 * 11,665 *

Median Monthly Costs $ 530.00 $ 665.00 $ 682.00

% of Household Income 17.6% 20.3% 20.2%

Without a Mortaaae 48 * 7,338 *

Median Monthly Costs $ 167.00 $ 201.00 $ 226.00 . .. . . % of Household Income 12.6% 1 1.8% 13.3%

Renter I Median Gross Monthlv Rent $ 275.00 $ 448.00 $ 404.00 i % of Household Income 32.5% 31.3% 26.1 %

* Based on sample survey of specified owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, & Housing Characteristics, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

VI1 - 17 i

TABLE 52

Median Monthly Contract Rent for Renter-Occupied Housing Units * Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region , 1980 & 1990

1980 ** 1990

Townships

Huston $ 203.00 $ 231 .OO (+ 13.8%)

Taylor 183.00 208.00 (+ 13.7%)

Union 249.00 213.00 (- 14.5%)

Worth 191.oo 241 .OO (+26.2%)

Borouahs

Port Matilda $ 240.00 $ 212.00 (- 11.7%) 1

> Unionville 175.00 238.00 (+ 36.0%) ! I

* Based on sample survey of specified renter-occupied housing units. i ** 1980 figures adjusted for inflation by 1.588%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing i Characteristics, August 1982, and 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, & Housing Characteristics, June 1992. Calculations by Landplan, Inc. , June 1998.

VI1 - 18 B. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1. Avai Ia bi I ity

The availability of land and building lots in Worth Township and Centre County does not appear to be a major obstacle to the development of new housing, at least not if the County’s subdivision and land development activity over the past 20 years is any indication. While it is true that not all subdivisions create residential building lots, examining this activity offers insight into the potential volume and location of future development in an area or a community.

A breakdown of the number of subdivisions which have occurred in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, the number of resulting lots, and the total acreage involved in these divisions during each of the last three decades (from 1978 to 1997) is presented in Tables 53, 54, and 55, on the following three pages. According to this information, obtained from County Planning Office records, a total of 89 subdivision plans were filed for Worth Township during the last 20 years, involving 5,708.9 acres of land, and accounting for the creation of 214 new lots. As Table 54 shows, almost three-quarters of these subdivisions were filed during the 1980s when subdivision activity in Worth Township was the highest for the Region and a total of 149 new lots resulted. Although the pace of activity in the Township in the 1990s has slowed somewhat, another 52 new lots have been created, and additional subdivisions are sure to take place.

Over the same 20-year period, 2,789 subdivision plans were processed throughout Centre County, involving 95,243 acres of land, and resulting in the creation of 12,401 new lots. Although the number of plans submitted countywide between 1990 and 1997 may be fewer than the number filed during the 1980s, the amount of acreage involved in subdivisions in the decade of the 90s has already surpassed the total acreage subdivided from 1980 to 1989. Furthermore, there is every indication that the number of new lots created during the 1990s will also exceed the number established in the 1980s. Minor economic peaks and valleys aside, the volume of subdivision activity in Centre County remains as high today as it was in the mid-l980s, with no immediate downturn expected. (Figure 1, page Vll-23, was extracted from the 1997 Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Activity Report, and plots the number of subdivision plans recorded from 1977 to 1997.)

Although these numbers seem high, subdivision activity in the Upper Bald Eagle Region over the past 20 years has only comprised a small portion of the County’s total. Only 12.5% of the subdivision plans filed during the period were from Upper Bald Eagle, and only 6.4% of the lots created were located there. Only 3.2% of all subdivisions filed since 1978 were for Worth Township, and only 1.7% of the new parcels created were located in the municipality.

A significant amount of the subdivision activity that occurred in Worth Township over the past 20 years took place as a result of the break-up of the J.T. Henry Estate. The Henry Estate was composed of lands in several areas of the municipality, including: Mountain Road, Sunnyside Hollow, Ardery Hollow, Martha

VI1 - 19 TABLE 53

Subdivision Plans and Lots Created Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region & Centre County

1978 & 1979

Subd. Plans/ Acreage Subdivided/ Lots Created/ % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total

Townsbios

Huston 5 (25.0%) 31 8.75 (56.0%) 13 (29.6%)

Taylor 3 (15.0%) 24.21 (4.3%) 4 (9.0%)

-! Union 7 (35.0%) 135.27 (23.8%) 14 (31.8%) Worth 5 (25.0%) 90.66 (15.9%) 13 (29.6%)

Borouahs

Port Matilda 0 (0.0%) 0.00 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Unionville 0 (0.0%) 0.00 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) r -

TOTALS 20 plans 568.89 acres 44 lots

Centre County 254 plans 5,156.08acres 1,382lots

1 Source: Centre County Planning Office, Subdivision Activity Reports, 1978-1979. .i Calculations by Landplan, Inc., July 1998.

VI1 - 20 1 i i ( TABLE 54

Subdivision Plans and Lots Created Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region & Centre County

1 1980 - 1989

Subd. Plans/ Acreage Subdivided/ Lots Created/ % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total

Townships 1; Huston 50 (24.6%) 2,629.98 (27.0%) 118 (26.5%)

Taylor 36 (17.7%) 1,140.56 (11.7%) 96 (21.6%)

Union 50 (24.6%) 1,225.59 (1 2.5%) 73 (16.4%)

Worth 63 (31.1%) 4,738.65 (48.6%) 149 (33.5%)

I I Borouqhs

Port Matilda 1 (0.5%) 2.69 (0.03%) 2 (0.5%)

Unionville 3 ( 1.5%) 16.03 ( 0.2%) 7 ( 1.5%) -

TOTALS 203 plans 9,753.5 acres 445 i lots I

! 1 Centre Countv 1,423 plans 42,125.18 acres 5,982 lots !

i Source: Centre County Planning Office, Subdivision Activity Reports, 1980-1989. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., July 1998. i J .J VI1 - 21 TABLE 55

Subdivision Plans and Lots Created Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region & Centre County

1990 - 1997

Subd. Plans/ Acreage Subdivided/ Lots Created/ % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total % of Reg. Total

Townships

Huston 37 (29.4%) 1,516.06 (28.1%) 99 (32.4%) Taylor 23 (18.2%) 826.92 (1 5.4%) 48 (15.7%)

Union 43 (34.1%) 2,158.91 (40.1%) 103 (33.7%)

Worth 21 (16.7%) 879.60 (1 6.3%) 52 (17.0%)

Borouahs

Port Matilda 1 (0.8%) 1.27 ( 0.02%) 2 (0.6%) Unionville 1 (0.8%) 6.74 ( 0.1%) 2 (0.6%) -

TOTALS 126 plans 5,389.5 acres 306 lots

Centre Count!, 1,112 plans 47,961.83acres 5,037 lots

Source: Centre County Planning Office, Subdivision Activity Reports, 1990-1997. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., July 1998.

VI1 - 22 FIGURE 1 Number of Recorded Plot Plans

300 -

250 --

200 -- LaJ n E 150 3 Z 100

0 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ..l> $%< p$$:, County Ordinance Local Ordinance Furnace, and Skytop. More specifically, division and redivision of the Mountain Road tract has resulted in the creation of 41 lots on 505 acres, including subdivisions known as Oliver Run Estates (5 lots on 14 acres in 1982 and 1984); Mountain Road (1 1 lots on 219 acres in 1986 and 1988); Black Oak Ridge (9 lots on 133 acres in 1986 and 1988); and Port Woods (15 lots on 84 acres between 1977 and 1987). In Martha Furnace and Ardery Hollow areas, division of the Estate included such subdivisions as: Martha Furnace (5 lots on 638 acres in 1985); Spring Hollow (2 lots on 636 acres in 1985); Skytop (4 lots on 77 acres in 1980); and Back Forty (3 lots on 40 acres in 1982). Along Sunnyside Hollow, division of the Estate resulted in the Scrubgrass Acres Subdivision (9 lots on 46 acres) and Sunnyside Estates (6 lots on 68 acres). Division of the Henry Estate into several larger tracts and then division of those tracts into lots inflates the average lot size that would be determined simply by dividing the number of lots into the total acres subdivided. Factoring out the original Estate divisions, typical lots created over the past 20 years in Worth Township average around 10 acres, with a range of three to 25 acres common.

2. Afforda bi I ity

Affordability is also an important element of the housing and needs assessment profile of any community. Sufficient affordable housing must exist to meet the needs of all levels of wage earners, particularly those with low or moderate incomes. The 1990 Census information in Table 51 (page Vll-17) shows that housing costs in Worth Township and throughout Centre County remain affordable, especially as compared to Pennsylvania as a whole. Further analysis of County data reveals that housing costs in Centre County are actually quite a bit higher than in surrounding counties and in other rural areas of the Commonwealth, particularly in the Centre Region. Therefore, despite what is indicated in Table 51, housing costs in Centre County may not be as affordable as they appear.

According to standards compiled in 1990 by the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs (now known as the Department of Community and Economic Development, or DCED) housing is considered "affordable"for home owners who spend no more than 28% of their gross monthly income for mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and insurance. Rental housing is identified in the same study as affordable for renters who spend 30% or less of their gross monthly income on rent and utilities. Applying these standards, it appears that housing , costs for homeowners in Worth Township fell well below the affordability threshold, while costs for rental housing were just above the acceptable level. The same principle appears true for homeowners and renters throughout Centre County. Regardless of the appearance of affordability, however, DCED and the Census fail to consider the discrepancy between housing prices and a householder's ability i to pay these costs when developing their threshold percentages. The interval I I between median household income and the prevailing median housing price is 1 known as an "affordability gap." While the gap can be significant even for those households with substantial income, for households subsisting on low or moderate wages, the interval in many cases is insurmountable. And, as buying power of household income decreases with inflation, the affordability gap widens, thereby eliminating even more householders as potential homeowners.

VI1 - 24 I I Based on the figures provided in Table 51 regarding median gross monthly rent for Centre County, a household would have to generate a minimum of $17,750 to $18,000 a year to meet the state’s 30% rental affordability threshold. According to 1990 Census income data (Table 16, page lV-12), more than one-third of the County’s households may fall short of this income level. (52.8% of Township households and 47.8% of all households countywide earn less than $25,000 per year, and could find it extremely difficult to purchase a home in their respective locations). Many of these low-income households are eligible for various housing assistance programs (mostly Section 8 rental subsidy programs) to help pay rent and utility bills, but an increase in the supply of lower cost rental units would certainly allow some of those families paying high rents to move on to home ownership.

I ’. Recent articles in the Centre Daily Times have considered the issue of affordable housing. Figures provided by the State College Borough Planning Office show that the cutoff for affordable housing for a family of four in Centre County now stands at $24,540, while the median income has reached $40,900. Using these statistics, Borough planners estimate that as many as 1,266 families in the County earn less than 50% of the identified median income, but are paying more than 50% of that income for rent and utilities.

An analysis of Building Permit records from 1990 to 1997 also provides information on the average cost of single family home construction in the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region. Statistics depicted in Table 56, on the next page, show that average construction costs in the Region fluctuated over the eight-year period, ranging from a low of $55,482 in 1993 to a high of $93,053 in 1997. Overall, the average cost of single family home construction in the Region was $72,259.

Building Permit records also indicate the type of housing constructed in Worth Township from 1990 to 1997. This information, presented in Table 57 on I’ page Vll-26, shows that 38 single family homes, 14 mobile homes, and 4 seasonal dwellings were constructed in the municipality over this eight-year period.

Table 58, page Vll-27, compares real estate transfer data from 1990 to 1997 for Worth Township, the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region, and for Centre County, and reveals the value of existing single family homes throughout the area. As with construction costs, selling prices of existing homes fluctuated somewhat from year to year, but overall remained pretty stable. According to the statistics in this Table, the average value of a single family home in Worth Township over the past eight years was $74,653, virtually the same as the cost of building a new home. Never- theless, the ability to afford either new or existing housing exceeds the financial means of many Township residents.

A community must seek to assure that affordable housing remains available for all residents, regardless of their income. An area cannot expect to remain prosperous if it does not serve its residents despite their income potential. (See also Part C of this Chapter for a discussion of some of the County’s existing and proposed affordable housing programs and communities.)

VI1 - 25 TABLE 56

Single Family Home Construction Costs Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region 1990 -1997

# of Homes Constructed * Average Cost **

1990 16 $ 63,063. 1991 14 $ 64,457. 1992 26 $ 63,777. 1993 10 $ 55,482. 1994 15 $ 77,756. 1995 24 $ 69,191. 1996 28 $ 74,916. 1997 27 $ 93,053.

* Based on number of Building Permits with construction cost data. I

** Based on anticipated construction cost data provided on Building Permit applications; does not include cost of land.

I TABLE 57

New Housing Units Worth Township 1990 - 1997

Single Family Mobile Home Seasonal Multi-family

1990 1991 1992 I 1993 1994 1995 \ 1996 1997

! TOTALS 38 14 4 0

Source: Centre County Planning Officeand Centre County Tax Assessment Office records, 1990 - 1997. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., July 1998.

VI1 - 26 TABLE 58

Existing Single Family Home Sales Value Worth Township, Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region & Centre County

1990 - 1997

Worth TownshiD Planninq Reqion Centre Countv # of Units/Selling Price* # of Units/Selling Price* # of Units/Selling Price*

1990 $60,000. 25 $55,468. 978 $ 92,166.

1991 $67,250. 19 $68,658. 892 $ 93,897.

1992 $52,500. 26 $52,546. 1,040 $ 97,983.

1993 $74,000. 18 $55,733. 1,091 $ 95,400.

1994 $74,000. 24 $65,254. 1,051 $101,439.

1995 $85,450. 23 $65,187. 1,010 $108,751.

1996 $92,667. 21 $77,667. 1,184 $105,920.

1997 $86,756 28 $68,687 1,139 $1 11,384.

* Includes the building(s), land, and utilities.

Source: Centre County Real Estate Transfers, 1990-1997. Compiled by Centre County Planning Office from records of the Centre County Tax Assessment Office, July 1998.

C. COUNTYWIDE HOUSING PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES

Demand for affordable housing in Centre County has historically exceeded supply. (The County Housing Authority has stopped accepting applications for low-cost housing because the waiting list is already too long.) Still, the number of family renters earning less than 50% of the County median income continues to rise, and every affordable housing community for families with limited incomes has a waiting list. To help meet this demand, as many as 594 dwelling units may need to be added to the 1,089 housing units already available throughout the County, according to estimates by the State College Borough Planning Office. A description of some of the County's existing and proposed affordable housing communities follows.

VI1 - 27 -. i

\ i 1. Established Communities

Centre County has nine affordable housing communities geared to families, including:

* Beaver Farm in Bellefonte - 20 3-bedroom apartments built in 1993 and owned by the County Housing Authority.

* Governors Gate in Bellefonte - 66 units built in 1979 with low-interest loans from the Farmers Home Administration; privately owned by a State College architect.

* Dublin Wood in Boggs Township - 40 apartments built and financed by the Farmers Home Administration in 1987; owned a Boalsburg firm.

* Park Crest Terrace Apartments in Ferguson Township - 240 units whose construction was financed by the Federal Tax Credit Program in 1994-1995; owned and managed by a development firm from Texas.

* Sylvan View in Ferguson Township - 49 single family homes built in 1992- 93 by State College residents as a Federal Tax Credit project.

* Pheasant Glen in Ferguson Township - 92 townhouse units built as a Federal Tax Credit project by a Michigan company; managed by a State College firm.

* Ashworth Woods in Harris Township - 60 townhouses built in 1998, developed through a limited partnership between a State College firm and an Oregon utility company.

* Centre Estates in Harris Township - 80 units built in 1982 and 1983 by two local groups; financing provided by the Farmers Home Administration.

* Spring Brae in Spring Township - 36 units financed by the Farmers Home Administration, built in 1982 and owned by a Pennsylvania-based development group.

2. Proposed Communities

Three additional affordable housing communities have been proposed for the Centre Region. Each targets families qualifying under federally-established income guidelines. If approved by their respective municipalities, each would be financed in part with federal tax credits. The three proposals are:

* Yorkshire Village in State College Borough - 40 townhouse units to be owned by a partnership of local and out-of-state interests.

* East Ridge Apartments in Harris Township - 64 apartments to be developed and built by a Florida corporation.

VI1 - 28 I * Elks Green Terrace in Ferguson Township - The first phase of this proposed development is to include 40 units and the second phase, 46 units; a recent change in Township zoning could however affect the overall number and type of units. A Florida firm is responsible for this development.

D. BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

Worth Township, along with each of the County’s other municipalities, currently enforces a local Building Permit Ordinance. There are currently no municipal Subdivision and Land Development or Zoning regulations in effect in the Township. Jurisdiction over subdivision and land development activity in the Township therefore falls to the Centre County Planning Commission, through administration of the County’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. (A total of 89 subdivision plans have been handled by the Centre County Planning Office for Worth Township over the past 20 years; an average of 4.5 plans per year.) No such assistance is provided related to zoning, as there is no countywide zoning ordinance. To date, Worth Township remains one of 14 municipalities in Centre County without zoning. (See Figure 2 on the next page for a current listing of planning and zoning controls in effect in each of the County’s communities.) Recognizing the value and benefits of local participation in municipal land-use decisions, the Worth Township Supervisors, in 1997, appointed a seven-member Planning Commission and charged them with developing a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the municipality. As a result, additional requirements may soon need to be met before a developer begins constructing a project in Worth Township.

VI1 - 29 COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONTROLS 1998 ______- -- __ - .. - __- - _ - .__ - - - - .-- - -__ - ._ _ _ .. .. Storm- FpE:;nsIveAdopted ~ComrnlsslonPlanning SubdlvlslonOrdinance tA:%on 1 OrZdq%!ce 1 I rF:Z:l 1 Secqfllly Water Ordlnance Insurance Area Ordinance ..-____. .A?f?!!es__ ...... CENTRE COUNTY X x-- 1x1 I .... .I .x .. .I CENTRE REGION Stale College Borough College Township Ferguson Township Hallmoon Township Harris Township Patton Township

INTER-VALLEY REGION Bellelonle Borough .- ...... X Howard Borough ...... Milesburg Borough Benner Township Boggs Township Curtin Township Howard Township .... _.__ X < Liberty Township -. .. - Marion Township ..- ...... I Spring Township .- ...... X _- Walker Township _ .....

MOSHANNON VALLEY REGION -- ...... Philipsburg Borough _ .... .::.I Soulh Philipsburg Borough ...... Rush Township -. ... -......

... Snow Shoe Borough X X X Burnside Township X Snow Shoe Township X .....

._ ...... Centre Hall Borough ~ __...... Millheim Borough ...... -. Gregg Township ...... X Haines Township ..... -.. . Miles Township ...... Penn Township ...... Poller Township ..... ____ ......

- -, ,.-- 4-d ...... , .--., , . , ..a I. -1 ' -, .... --.. r

CHAPTER 8 = TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 8

TRANSPORTATION

Another issue which must be considered in planning for the controlled and systematic growth of a municipality is the requirement that adequate provision be made for the safe, efficient circulation of people and goods into and through the community. The local and regional transportation network and system of roads and highways will play an important role in sustaining existing development as well as supporting future growth in Worth Township and surrounding municipalities.

Transportation networks connect communities to one another and to the outside world. The very livelihood of an area often depends on how efficiently goods and services can be imported and exported. Local streets and roads should provide safe, reliable access to work, schools, and residential areas, and shopping and recreational activities.

These and other aspects of the local transportation network will be reviewed and examined in Chapter 8. This assessment will be coupled with an evaluation of the proposed 1-99 construction and U.S. Route 322 improvement projects, and several recommendationswill be presented for short- and long-term transportation improvements.

A. ROAD AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

Because motor vehicles are the dominant means of transportation in the Township today, roads must be built and maintained to accommodate existing traffic movement and any future growth. Road design, construction and maintenance are very expensive. New and expanded road systems arise in response to new developments or the need to ! accommodate expanding volumes or different types of traffic. Before specific recommendations can be made, it is necessary inventory and evaluate the existing road network.

1. Inventory

A listing of the state and municipally owned streets and roadways in Worth Township is provided in Table 59 below, along with the mileage and general descriptive location of each roadway in the community. Map 12, Worth Township Transportation Map, illustrates the actual location of these routes.

2. Functional Classification

I The incompatibility of a highway’s two major functions, that of moving traffic and providing access to specific sites, requires a classification designation aimed at separating roadways by the function each performs. A functional classification designation therefore identifies the role that each roadway plays in the total circulation network within and outside of the municipality. Such designation also implies certain restraints (e.g. limiting access points) and/or posting (e.g. speed

vi11 - 1 TABLE 59

Roadway Inventory Worth Township, Centre County

1998

ROADWAY NUMBER. NAME & LENGTH LOCATION

State Routes

U.S. Route 220 (S.R. 0220) - 3.89 miles -from western to eastern boundary (also known as S. Eagle Valley Rd.)

U.S. Route 322 (S.R. 0322) - 6.97 miles - from Port Matilda boundary north (also known as Philipsburg Road) to Township line

S.R. 3017 (Beckwith Road) - .901 miles -from Port Matilda boundary south to Township line

S.R. 3023 (Reese Hollow Road) - 4.58 miles - from U.S. Route 220 north & east 1 to U.S. Route 322

S.R. 8012 (Route 220/322 Interchange) - - east end of Township at Route .834 miles 220/322 connection

S.R. 8020 (Route 322/S.R.3023 Interchange) - - north end of Township at Route .218 miles 322 Flat Rock Interchange 1

S.R. 9302 (Route 322 Truck Escape Ramp) - - north of Port Matilda/Township .062 miles boundary, along U.S. Route 322

TownshiD Roads

T-348 Ardery Hollow Road - 3.17 miles - from Huston Twp. line (north of Rte. 220) north to E.Mountain Rd. !

1 T-300 East Mountain Road - 3.71 miles - from Flat Rock Interchange east to Huston Township line i 1 i T-316 Laurel Run Road - 1.I9 miles - from Route 322 east to dead end 1 T-310 Orchard Road - .37 miles - from Beckwith Rd. west to Half i Moon Twp. line ,i t T-311 Sawmill Road - 1.45 miles - from Reese Hollow Rd. east to 2 Route 322

Vlll - 2 iI

, ROADWAY NUMBER, NAME & LENGTH LOCATION

Township Roads (Continued)

T-312 Shady Dell Road - 1.70 miles - from Reese Hollow Rd. east to Route 322

T-339 Shangri Lane - .33 miles - from Reese Hollow Rd. north to Route 322

T-346 Spring Valley Road - .62 miles - from Sunnyside Hollow Rd. north to dead end

T-313 Sunnyside Hollow Rd. 3.41 miles - from Route 220 north & east to Ardery Hollow Rd.

T-301 West Mountain Road - .80 miles - from Reese Hollow Rd. west to Taylor Township line

T-902 Bloskey Road - .29 miles -from Route 322 northeast to dead end

Source: PA Department of Transportation, District 2-0 Off ice, Municipal Services Division, and Worth Township Supervisors, August 1998.

limits, road usage, and directional signage) which should be imposed and maintained in order to assure safe driving conditions.

The definitions below provide a general description of the various types of road and highway functional classifications and some examples of each type of roadway in Worth Township and/or the region. (A complete classification of the Township’s roadways is presented in Table 60, which follows the designations.)

I i Roadwav Classification Desiclnations i Maior Arterials Roads that provide for the movement of large volumes of through traffic between regions and metropolitan areas. They generally serve I i I long-distance interstate or intrastate traffic and are usually classified as limited access highways or expressways. (Examples: Interstate 1 99, Interstate 80, and U.S. Route 322.) 1 Minor Arterials Roads that provide for the movement of large volumes of through traffic between centers of regional importance and provide connections between major arterials and collector streets. Access i may be restricted in some cases. (Example: U.S. Route 220.)

. , .. i ,I Vlll - 3 1 1

Maior Collectors Roads that provide for inter-community travel within the region and provide connections to the arterial network. These roadways can also accommodate significant volumes of traffic, mostly local in nature. (Examples: S.R. 3023 [Reese Hollow Road] and S.R. 3017 [Beckwith Road].)

Minor Collectors Roads that connect local traffic generators, community facilities, major subdivisions and rural residential areas. Some may provide access to individual properties. (Examples: Sunnyside Hollow Road and Ardery Hollow Road.) I

Local Streets Roads that provide access to abutting properties and minor subdivisions. Movement of traffic on local streets is usually slower and the volume of traffic considerably lower than on higher-level roadways. (Examples: Shady Dell Road and Sawmill Road.)

The following Table presents a complete functional classification listing of all roadways in Worth Township. (See also Map 12.)

TABLE 60

Roadway Functional Classifications Worth Township, Centre County

1998

ROADWAY NUMBER & NAME CLASSIFICATION

State Routes

U.S. Route 220 (S.R. 0220) Minor Arterial (also known as S. Eagle Valley Rd.)

U.S. Route 322 (S.R. 0322) Major Arterial (also known as Philipsburg Road)

S.R. 3017 (Beckwith Road) Major Collector

S.R. 3023 (Reese Hollow Road) Major Collector

S.R. 8012 (Route 220/322 Interchange) Minor Arterial

S.R. 8020 (Route 322/S.R.3023 Interchange) Major Collector

S.R. 9302 (Route 322 Truck Escape Ramp) Local Street

(Continued on Next Page)

Vlll - 4 ROADWAY NUMBER & NAME CLASSIFICATION

Township Roads

T-348 Ardery Hollow Road Minor Collector

T-300 East Mountain Road Local Street

T-316 Laurel Run Road Local Street

T-310 Orchard Road Local Street

T-311 Sawmill Road Local Street

T-312 Shady Dell Road Local Street

T-339 Shangri Lane Local Street

T-346 Spring Valley Road Local Street

T-313 Sunnyside Hollow Road Minor Collector

T-301 West Mountain Road Local Street

T-902 Bloskey Road Local Street

Source: Classifications by Landplan, Inc. and Centre County Planning Office, August 1998.

3. Ownership

As presented above and illustrated on Map 12, road ownership within the Township is divided into three major categories; federally owned highways, state- owned routes and local or municipally owned roads. Roadways designated "U.S." or "Interstate", are federally owned but are maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT) through appropriations from the federal government. Those routes with "S.R." designations are owned and maintained by PADOT, and those identified with a "i" prefix are municipally owned and maintained. (See also the discussion regarding general maintenance responsibilities in Sub-Part 6 of this Section.)

According to PADOT records, a total of 34.5 miles of roadways exist in Worth Township. Of that total, 17.46 miles, or just over one-half, are federal and state roadways. The remaining 17.04 miles of public streets and roads are owned and maintained by Worth Township.

There are also many private roads in the Township which are owned and maintained by the individuals using them or by developers. Some of these roads

Vlll - 5 serve as driveways for single residences, while others provide access to several dwellings. Most have recently been named as part of the County’s effort to enhance its 9-1-1 emergency dispatching system. Examples of private roads in the Township include Huckleberry Hill Road, Bradley Road, Kelley Road, and Zendt, Hartman and Spackman Lanes.

4. Phvsical Conditions

A field survey of the type and condition of roadway surfaces in Worth Township was conducted by Landplan, Inc., with the assistance of staff from the Centre County Planning Office, in June 1998. Each roadway was evaluated and its surface condition was rated based on the following criteria. (The results of the assessment are presented in Table 61 which follows the rating criteria. Road surface types are also depicted on the Transportation System Map on page Vlll-7A.)

Roadway Surface Condition Ratings

Good: Surface is smooth and free of potholes. Fair: Surface is generally smooth with scattered potholes. Poor: Surface is rough or non-existent or has numerous potholes, breaks, etc.

TABLE 61

Roadway Surface Conditions Worth Township, Centre County

1998

SURFACE ROADWAY NUMBER & NAME SUR FACE CONDITION

State Routes

U.S. Route 220 (S.R. 0220) Bituminous Good (also known as S. Eagle Valley Rd.)

U.S. Route 322 (S.R. 0322) Bituminous & Fair to Good (also known as Philipsburg Road) Reinforced Portland Cement

S.R. 3017 (Beckwith Road) Bituminous Fair

S.R. 3023 (Reese Hollow Road) Bituminous Fair to Good

(Continued on Next Page)

Vlll - 6 ROADWAY NUMBER & NAME SURFACE CON DlTlON

State Roads (Continued)

S.R. 8012 (Route 220/322 Inter- change) Bituminous Good

S.R. 8020 (Route 322/S.R.3023 Interchange) Reinforced Portland Cement Fair

S.R. 9302 (Route 322 Truck Escape Ramp) Earth - Unimproved Fair

Township Roads

T-348 Ardery Hollow Road Bituminous -+1.42 miles Fair to Good Gravel -+1.75 miles Poor to Fair T-300 East Mountain Road Bituminous -+.81 miles Good to Fair Gravel -+2.90 miles Fair T-316 Laurel Run Road Bituminous -+.65 miles Fair Gravel + .54 miles Poor to Fair T-310 Orchard Road Gravel Fair

1-311 Sawmill Road Gravel Fair

T-312 Shady Dell Road Gravel Fair

T-339 Shangri Lane Gravel Fair

T-346 Spring Valley Road Grave I/ Dirt Poor to Fair

T-313 Sunnyside Hollow Road Bituminous Good

T-30 1 West Mountain Road Bituminous Good to Fair

T-902 Service Road Gravel Good

Source: Field survey by Landplan, Inc. & Centre County Planning Office, June 1998.

VI11 - 7 5. Townshic, Bridaes

There are two bridges in Worth Township located on municipal roadways. Each exceeds 20 feet in length and is therefore subject to Pennsylvania’s mandatory inspection schedule and review criteria established in the National Bridge Safety Inspection Program. Several other structures cross small streams in the Township, but since their lengths do not exceed 20 feet, no state inventory of these structures is required. General information on both of the municipally owned bridges, including improvement recommendations resulting from their most recent inspection (June 2, 1998), follows.

* Worth Township Bridge # 348 is located along Township Route 348, Ardery Hollow Road, approximately 2,115 feet northwest of the intersection of U.S. Route 220, in the eastern part of the Township. The structure, built in 1955, crosses Ardery Run, and is a single-span, steel I-beam bridge approximately 22 feet in length. Its abutments are constructed of concrete, as are its footings. The deck is cast-in-place concrete with a bituminous wearing surface. There are two traffic lanes on the bridge, serving two-way traffic, with a clear roadway width of 17.2 feet. At present the structure is posted for a weight limit of 16 tons.

According to the structure’s most recent Inspection Report, issued in July of 1 1998, the substructure of the bridge is in poor condition, with severe scaling and hairline cracks on both abutment wings, stem areas, and end blocks. The superstructure, consisting of steel I-beams, was found to be in fair condition. 1 Although minor to moderate rusting and lamination was found on the beams, no severe problems were detected with the superstructure. The deck and approaches to the structure were in satisfactory shape, although a few minor problems were identified during inspection. Overall, the inspection found the bridge in fair condition, with an estimated remaining life of 10 years. Despite these findings, the Report did not recommend replacement. Instead, several recommendations were presented to extend the structure’s life, including removing and replacing unsound concrete at both abutments and wings, sand blasting and painting all I- I beams and diaphragms, and providing a guide rail at the structure’s approach and railing on the bridge itself. The estimated cost of all suggested improvements totalled $1 6,600. While most of the same maintenance recommendations were made in the structure’s previous two inspections (1994 and 1996), the Township could not afford to take the suggested corrective action.

* The Township’s second bridge is identified as Worth Township Bridge # 312. It carries Township Route 312, Shady Dell Road, over Laurel Run and is located approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of U.S. Route 322, near the Township Maintenance Building. This structure is a prestressed concrete adjacent box beam bridge with a clear span of 22 feet between abutments, and was built in 1972. The abutments are cast-in-place concrete, and the deck is covered with a bituminous wearing surface. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge, with a clear roadway width of 19.5 feet between railings. While no weight limitations are required for the structure, it is posted as a “Narrow Bridge.”

Inspection of this structure in June 1998 found the substructure to be in fair

viii - a affect other aspects of the environment. Floodplains, wetlands, and hydric soil areas may be affected. Although PADOT and its engineers have studied and evaluated these conditions, and have included mitigation efforts as a part of the construction work, these environmentally sensitive areas will never be the same.

As 1-99 proceeds across the Bald Eagle Valley to its ultimate connection with the Mount Nittany Expressway outside of State College, it interchanges with the eastern end of the existing four-lane section of U.S. Route 322, just north of the Borough of Port Matilda, in Worth Township. The location of a major interchange in this area of the Township is also likely to have considerable impact on the community. While this connection should significantly reduce the number of vehicles travelling through Port Matilda on Route 322 -- thereby improving congestion problems in the Borough -- new traffic problems could arise in the vicinity of the interchange in Worth Township.

Property owners living near the interchange could experience tremendous pressure to sell or develop their land for large-scale commercial or industrial uses, as the area will now have access to significant volumes of vehicular traffic. Spin- off development of other types could occur throughout the Township as a result of improved accessibility. For example, new residential developments could be planned to take advantage of the Township's "rural lifestyle," while promoting its proximity to cultural, recreational and commercial areas. Any development of this magnitude will definitely have an impact on the Township. The establishment of municipal zoning regulations will provide the Township with some control over the types of development that occur and where such development will be situated. Participation in the Spring Creek Watershed/ClearWater Conservancy's 1-99 Community Partnership for Sustainable Development may help the Township deal with short- and long-term impacts of the highway, and result in land use recommendations that can be incorporated into local zoning laws.

U.S. Route 322./Corridor 0

Another concern of Township residents is the recent announcement that the 27-mile stretch of U.S. Route 322 from Port Matilda to the Woodland Exit of Interstate 80 (Exit 20) has been identified as a priority corridor and is slated to receive funding to upgrade its condition for Interstate designation. Planning Commission members want to be sure that the Township's rural character and its natural and scenic lands are not diminished or destroyed by construction of this roadway. In particular, there is consensus among Planning Commission members and the Township Supervisors, that the Oliver Run watershed -- a high-quality stream with associated valuable wetlands -- needs to be protected. They also want to be assured that Township representatives are given the opportunity to review and comment on all aspects of the project, including siting of the roadway. The recent formation of a citizens' advisory committee by PADOT to address project- related issues should provide Township officials with a forum for expressing their concerns, opinions and viewpoints, and allow them to remain knowledgeable about details of the project.

Vlll - 13 3. Future TransDortation Plans and Projects

Worth Townshio

As noted in this Chapter, Worth Township Supervisors are responsible for selecting and planning road maintenance and improvement projects for the municipal street system. In the past, it has been the Township’s practice to address maintenance issues as they arise and to schedule roadway improvements only when sufficient monies are available. Even though the Township annually receives in excess of $33,000 (1997 allocation) in Liquid Fuels funds for road work, major reconstruction or resurfacing projects can easily surpass this amount. (It typically costs between $30,000 and $100,000 to pave a mile of roadway with 1 1/2 inches of bituminous asphalt; and between $8,500 and $10,000 to resurface a mile of roadway with 1 1/2 inches of 2RC stone, followed by an application of MC 30 dust control oil.) Therefore, in order to undertake a major project, the Township must either encumber several years worth of their Liquid Fuels allocations or supplement this revenue with monies from other sources, i.e. the general fund or by borrowing.

To maximize the effectiveness of their project planning efforts and minimize the amount of borrowing necessary, it is recommended that the Township establish a specific five-year road and bridge maintenance and improvement plan. Such a plan would help the Supervisors in scheduling and budgeting for upcoming projects, and should make it easier to determine when or if tax increases or interfund transfers may be needed to supplement Liquid Fuels funds. Such a plan would let the Township more easily coordinate road maintenance and construction projects with any public utility plans which might affect local roadways, i.e. sanitary sewer or water line extensions or improvement projects, as well as the underground installation or improvement of telephone, electric, or cable services. (See also the list of anticipated maintenance and capital improvements projects for Worth Township introduced in the Transportation Plan in Chapter XI, page XI-14.)

Centre Comfy

Centre County also receives an annual allocation of Liquid Fuels funds from the State. However, since the County has no roads or bridges to maintain, the Commissioners use their funds as grants to county municipalities for road and bridge projects. Worth Township officials may wish to consider requesting an allocation of these monies from the County on an annual basis as a means of supplementing their municipal road dollars.

PADOT

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT) also plans specific highway and bridge improvement projects in order to make the best use of their limited funds. While maintenance work is an ongoing effort for the Department, major road and highway projects must be planned, prioritized and then ... programmed. Every two years PADOT prepares a Twelve-Year Program for submission to the State Transportation Committee which itemizes each of the

VI11 - 14 Department’s anticipated major projects for the next 12 years. The Twelve-Year Program also includes a cost estimate and potential funding sources for each proposed project.

Specific projects planned in the vicinity of Worth Township vicinity and included in the current 12-Year Program are listed in Table 63 that follows on the next page. (While few projects beyond the I-99/322 construction are listed for Worth Township, there are several road and bridge-related projects planned in neighboring municipalities that could affect Worth Township residents or others travelling to, from, or through the Upper Bald Eagle Planning Region.)

In addition to the 12-Year Program listing PADOT’s largest and most costly anticipated highway and bridge projects, other highway improvement work is scheduled on an annual basis and is funded through the County’s general maintenance budget. Centre County projects scheduled for Fiscal Year 1999- 2000 which are located in the vicinity of Worth Township are presented in Table 64 on Page Vlll-18.

C. PUBLIC TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION

Four primary providers operate transit services in Centre County. They include the Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA), the Centre County Transportation Office, Fullington .Trailways and Greyhound Lines, and the Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

1. CATA

The CATA, a joint municipal authority of five Centre Region municipalities (State College Borough, College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton Townships), provides the greatest variety of transportation services for County residents. Their operation ranges from fixed-route bus services to arranging for park-and-ride and curb-to- curb transportation. A brief review of these services follows.

* Centre Line - Centre Line bus routes serve downtown State College, Penn State’s University Park campus, the Borough of Bellefonte, suburban shopping centers, apartment complexes and residential areas, government off ices, and special points of interest. CATA operates 11 fixed routes in these areas with a fleet of 35 buses.

While service to these areas continues to be important, the recently i released Centre Area Public Transportation Plan recommends that CATA expand its boundaries to include an even larger area. In particular, the Plan I suggests that commuter weekday service along the US Route 322 corridor I to Philipsburg through Port Matilda be added by August of 1999, along with weekday commuter service along the PA Route 45 corridor.

j * The Loop - The Loop consists of two integrated bus routes: the Campus Loop and the Town Loop. The Campus Loop, operated by Penn State, runs i via College Avenue in a clockwise direction around the University Park campus. Vlll - 15 1 TABLE 63 PAD1 IT Highway and Bridge Projects Twelve-Year Program (1997-2008)

Worth Township & Vicinity

cost Route # Proiect Location Proiect TvDe Timing (OOCSS)

SR 0080 1-80 Viaduct over Mo- Bridge Rehabilitation 1st 4 yrs. 1,300 Shannon Ck./Conrail (Engineering) Rush Township

SR 0080 1-80 Viaduct over Mo- Bridge Rehabilitation 2nd 4 yrs. 13,210 Shannon Ck./Conrail (Construction) Rush Township

SR 0220 US Route 220 Relocation - Transportation Study 1st 4 yrs. Bald Eagle to 1-80 (CIO) (Eng/ROW/Construction) Taylor, Worth, Patton, College, Benner, and Spring Townships

SR 0220 US Route 220 - Bald Eagle 4 Lane Relocation 1st 4 yrs. 130,100 to US Route 322 (C-11) (ROW & Construction) Taylor & Worth Twps.

SR 0220 US Route 220 - State 4 Lane Relocation College to 1-80 (C-12) (Construction) 1st 4 yrs. 38,100 Patton, College, Benner & Spring Townships

SR 0220 US Route 220 Relocation - Environ. Mitigation 1st 4 yrs. 1, 000 Proposed Project Area (ROW) Taylor, Worth, Patton Twps.

SR 0220 US Route 220 Relocation - Environ. Monitoring 1st 4 yrs. 9,000 Bald Eagle to 1-80 (Construction) Taylor, Worth, Patton, College, Benner, and Spring Townships

SR 0322 US Route 322 - "Dog Leg" 4 Lane Relocation 1st 4 yrs. 10,m 1-99 at P.Matilda to (Engineering) 1-80 Exit 20 Worth and Rush Townships

(Continued on Next Page) I

i Vlll - 16

.! j

Twelve-Year Program (1997-2008) (Continued) cost Route g Proiect Location Proiect Tvpe Timing pOO’S)

SR 0322 US Route 322 Bridge over Bridge Replacement 1st 4 yrs. 375 Moshannon Creek (Engineering/ ROW) Rush Township

SR 0322 US Route 322 Bridge over Bridge Replacement 2nd 4 yrs. 1 Moshannon Creek (Construction) Rush Township -

SR 0322 US Route 322 - Connection New 2 Lane Roadway 1st 4 yrs. 2,500 of Ninth Street (Eng/ROW/Constructn) Philipsburg Borough

SR 0322 US Route 322 - Center St. New 2 Lane Roadway 1st 4 yrs. 2,500 Extension (Eng/ROW/Constructn) Philipsburg Borough

SR 0350 PA Route 350 - Philipsburg 2 Lane Relocation 2nd 4 yrs. 500 Bypass (Engineering) Rush Twp. & Philipsbg. Boro.

SR 0350 PA Route 350 - Twigg Settle. Roadwav Restoration 1st 4 vrs. * 1,699 to Philipsburg (Eng /ROW/Constructn) Rush Township

SR 0504 PA Route 504 Bridge over Bridge Replacement 1st 4 yrs. * 1,030 Cold Stream (Eng/ROW/Constructn) Philipsburg Borough

SR 0504 PA Route 504 Bridge over Bridge Replacement 1st 4 yrs. * 150 Black Bear Run (Construction) Rush Township

SR 0504 PA Route 504 Bridge over Bridge Replacement 1st 4 yrs. * 275 Six Mile Run (Construction) Rush Township

SR 0504 Airport Rd. Restor. #I Road Reconstruction 1st 4 yrs. * 2,036 from Cold Stream to 24 feet Phlpsbg. Boro & Rush Twp(Eng/ROW/Constructn)

SR 0970 PA Route 970 Bridge over Bridge Painting 1st 4 yrs. 110 Moshannon Creek (Eng & Constructn) Rush Township

* Project completed

Vlll - 17 1

TABLE 64

PADOT Centre County Road Improvement Projects July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 Worth Township & Vicinity

Route # Proiect Location Proiect TvDe

SR 0220 Port Matilda Mill full roadway width; make base repairs; pave Port MatiIda Borough roadway with ID-2 material; paint pavement markings; & install plastic inlaid markers.

SR 0322 Truck Pull-Off to Pave roadway with ID-2 material; mill driveway North Street - Worth notches; stabilize shoulders; & paint pavement Twp. & Port Matilda markings. Borough

SR 0322 North Street to SR Mill full roadway width; pave with ID-2 material; 220 - Port Matilda & paint pavement markings. Borough

SR 0322 Port Matilda Mountain Correct unsatisfactory subbase conditions & Worth Township rehabilitate (patch) pavement.

SR 0322 Port Matilda Mountain Correct unsatisfactory subbase conditions & Rush Township rehabilitate (patch) pavement.

Source: PA Department of Transportation, Twelve-Year Transportation Program - 1997-2008 and Centre County Road Improvement Projects, District 2-0 Office, March 1999.

Vlll - 18 The Town Loop runs in a counter-clockwise direction around the campus via Beaver Avenue. This Loop is operated by the CATA. All Loop buses are blue and white. * Park and Ride - CATA, in cooperation with Penn State, operates the Park and Ride Program. This Program is designed to provide inexpensive perimeter parking for downtown State College employees and local residents.

* Centre Ride - Centre Ride provides curb-to-curb transportation for senior citizens and people with disabilities through a contract arrangement with a taxi service. Curb-to-curb transportation for Penn State students, faculty and staff with disabilities is also provided on University Park by Penn State.

* Arts Festival and Football Shuttles - Special shuttle bus services are provided each year on home football weekends and during the annual Central Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts in July. Additional shuttle bus services are provided periodically in conjunction with other special events.

2. Centre Countv Transportation Office

The Centre County Transportation Off ice coordinates transportation services for County human service agencies using 19 vehicles. While this specialized service is open to the general public, riders are usually elderly, persons with disabilities, or low-income individuals. Daily service is designed around the travel needs of persons who have secured advanced reservations. Transportation provided by this service is available throughout Centre County.

3. Fullinaton Trailwavs & Grevhound Lines

Fullington Trailways and Greyhound Lines, Inc. travel through Centre County, providing inter-city services to and from state and national destinations. (See Part D.2. below for further details.)

4. Penn State University

Penn State provides transportation services for University students, faculty and staff with the Campus Loop bus service, and, in conjunction with CATA, the Park and Ride Program.

D. OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION

1 Rail Services

Since its formation in June 1983, the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority has actively pursued its mission of preserving public rail lines in Central Pennsylvania which Conrail or other carriers have decided to abandon. The primary purpose of this multi-county authority is to maintain service to rail-dependent industries in the area through short line rail operations. In 1984, the Authority purchased an initial

Vlll - 19 , 82 miles of Conrail lines which served 22 industries. Included in the original $4.1 million purchase was the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad (former Pennsylvania Railroad lines) serving the Nittany Valley and Port Matilda. Money for this purchase came from the federal Economic Development Administration, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and from the industries being served. The Bald Eagle Branch of the railroad, which runs between Milesburg and Mill Hall in the Bald Eagle Valley, was subsequently acquired by the Authority and added to their previous purchases. As a result of the Authority’s intervention, a total of almost 62 miles of rail lines were preserved for future use.

While the number of industrial users of the railroad has fluctuated over the years, as have the actual users, the rail lines are still important to the economy of the area. (There are currently no users in Worth Township or Port Matilda, but there are nine customers in Centre County and six in Clinton and Blair Counties.) In fact, the location of the new Altoona-Blair County Development Corporation business/industrial park was partially based on accessibility to rail service. At least one of the park’s future tenants has already expressed plans to access Conrail/Norfolk Southern’s main line at Tyrone via the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad.

In recognition of the importance of rail service to and in the area, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania approved $3 million dollars in State funds in April 1999, to be matched by another $1 million from SEDA-COG, to replace 28 miles of jointed track between Tyrone and Lock Haven with seamless rail. Joint Rail Authority records show that increased business was at least partially responsible for wear and tear of the track. While 750 rail cars traveled these rails in 1985, 14,300 carloads moved along this segment of rail line in 1998.

Conrail recently entered into an agreement with SEDA-COG to operate trains on the Bald Eagle Branch of the railroad from Clinton County to Blair County. These trains are typically unit trains carrying coal and operating at relatively high speeds (40 miles per hour). The only problems that may arise from this usage would relate to safety where public and private roads cross the tracks. It is unclear at this time whether Norfolk Southern will continue to operate trains on SEDA- COG lines.

The Bellefonte Historic Railroad conducts weekend rail excursions through the Nittany and Bald Eagle Valleys between Memorial Day and October. All excursions aboard the diesel train depart from the Train Station in Bellefonte, and include a choice of routes on the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad’s 60+ miles of track. Dinner trains are operated monthly and charters are available year-round. I

Amtrak provides daily passenger rail service to Pittsburgh and Harrisburg and points beyond. While there are no Amtrak lines or stations in Centre County, I residents of the area can arrange to arrive or depart from the Lewistown or Altoona stations.

Over the years, high speed rail has also been considered for Pennsylvania. The new federal transportation legislation (TEA-21) includes funding for the State

Vlil - 20 i to once again investigate this mode of transportation. The last time high speed rail was contemplated, the route included a station in State College and entered the Bald Eagle Valley at Blue Springs Gap (just beyond the southwest corner of Worth Towns hip.)

2. Bus Service

Regional bus service is provided via Fullington Trailways and Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc., from the terminal at 152 N. Atherton Street in State College. Both provide inter- and intra-state travel services for County residents. From State College, persons can travel to and from DuBois, Harrisburg, Monroeville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh International Airport, Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsport. Persons in Philipsburg can travel to and from DuBois and Clearfield to the west, and State College and Harrisburg to the east. In addition, all Greyhound buses using 1-80 stop at the Milesburg Truck Plaza from which passengers can connect with other buses running directly to New York, Cleveland, and Chicago and points beyond.

3. Air TransDortation

Air transportation is available for Township residents from several airport facilities located within reasonable proximity of their homes: the University Park Airport, located just northeast of State College, the Harrisburg International Airport in Middletown, and the Williamsport Regional Airport in Montoursville. Passenger commuter services, via Northwest Airlink, United Express, and US Airways Express, are available at the University Park facility, as are a full range of air freight and private charter services. Daily commercial flights are provided to Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. Expanded passenger commuter and jet services are available at the Harrisburg Airport, along with additional freight capabilities. US Airways Express commuter and private charter flight arrangements can also be made at the Williamsport Regional Airport.

The University Park Airport continues to expand in an attempt to gain a larger portion of the air transportation market. A recently completed $20-million renovation project at the Airport added 1,750 feet to the length of the runway, for a total length of 6,700 feet, and resurfaced the entire runway. The airport can now accommodate large jet airplanes such as Boeing 727s and 737s.

In addition to University Park Airport, there are several other air fields and related operations in Centre County. A brief description of each of these facilities follows. * Universitv Park Airport - located along Fox Hill Road in Benner Township, northeast of State College. Owned and operated by Penn State University. Field elevation 1239 ft. above sea level. Navigation facilities include two hard-surfaced runways, runway lights, rotating beacon, lighted wind tee, ILS on Runway 24. Open daily from 6:OO a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Services include fueling, major repairs, hangar rental, flight instruction, airplane rentals, tiedowns, de-icing and pre-heat. Accommodations include terminal, restrooms, taxi, limo, car-rental facilities, and

Vlll - 21 phone.

* Mid-State Reaional AirDort - located in Rush Township, Centre County, 7 miles east of Philipsburg via PA Route 504, in Black Moshannon State Park. Field elevation 1948 ft. above sea level. Navigation facilities include two hard-surfaced runways with full-precision approach, rotating beacon, runway lights. Open daily from 8:30 a.m. to 7:OO p.m., 24 hours on request. Services include fueling, minor repairs or light maintenance, flight instruction, and charter arrangements. Accommodations include terminal, restaurant, courtesy car, and off -site car rental, restrooms, and phone. * Kevstone Gliderport - located between Julian and Unionville, Centre County, south of US Route 220 and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad, and north of Bald Eagle Creek. Field elevation 815 ft. above sea level. Navigation facilities include an asphalt glider launching strip. Open daily 9:00 a.m. to 5:OO p.m., March through December. Services include flight instruction, plane and glider rental, and tiedowns. Accommodations include office, bunk house, and phone. * Bellefonte Skvpark - privately owned airport located along PA Route 550 in Benner Township, west of Bellefonte, about 3 miles NE of University Park Airport. Provides general aviation services and is limited to a single runway.

Some additional air services are also available at the Altoona/Blair County Airport at Martinsburg.

I ,

Vlll - 22 CHAPTER 9 - LAND USE I

CHAPTER 9

LAND USE

Perhaps the most basic element of a Comprehensive Plan is the evaluation of current land uses within a municipality. This data is then used to provide insights into the functionality of land use and to determine the interrelationships that exist between different uses. The manner in which land was used in the past formed the environment and character of the present and has direct implications for the future. Once these existing conditions and relationships are known, the findings can be used by Township officials and citizens to develop goals and objectives for the community to protect and preserve the area’s present quality of life for future generations.

Chapter 9 will examine the physical features of Worth Township: its physiography, geology, topography, soils, floodplains, wetlands, and other natural resources. This evaluation will provide the foundation upon which future land use plans for the municipality can then be based. Following examination of the Township’s physical features, a review of the municipality’s existing land uses will be presented and acreage estimates for each use will be provided.

A. PHYSICAL FEATURES

The physical features of an area or region are important in determining the area’s future development potential. In the case of Worth Township, the area’s physical relief could present major limitations for future growth. Slopes in the hillside areas of the hollows which run perpendicular to the Bald Eagle Creek and wind through the foothills of the Allegheny Plateau can be excessive, upwards of 25% in many places. Likewise, the slope of the Bald Eagle Mountain which runs along the Township’s southern border could present a significant obstacle to the municipality’s future growth. Floodplains and wetland soils located throughout the community’s numerous hollows will have an impact on the type and magnitude of development which might occur in these areas. Another limiting characteristic in the area will be the soils and their inability in specific locations to satisfactorily accommodate sub-surface sewage disposal. As a result of these physical constraints, future growth in the Township could be severely limited.

1. Phvsioaraphv

Centre County is divided into two physiographic provinces, both part of the Appalachian Highlands. The first of the provinces, the Allegheny Plateau, is located to the northwest of U.S. Route 220, and is characterized as an elevated, forested plain divided into deep narrow valleys drained by fast-flowing streams. The eroded foothills at the base of the Plateau follow the northern rim of the long, narrow Bald Eagle Valley and define the southern limit of this province. These foothills and the escarpment above are known as the Allegheny Front.

The Ridge and Valley province extends southeast of U.S. Route 220. A

IX - 1 significant part of Pennsylvania’s physiography, the Ridge and Valley province is characterized by long, narrow mountain ridges and broad, gently sloping valleys with slow-running streams. In contrast to the valleys found in the Allegheny Plateau, the valleys of this province contain deep, fertile soils and as a result have attracted considerable development over the years. Map 15 on the next page illustrates the physiography of Centre County as a whole.

Worth Township contains portions of both provinces. The area north of U.S. Route 220 is part of the Allegheny Plateau, while the remainder of the municipality south of Route 220 is part of the Ridge and Valley Province. Map 16 (page IX- 3A) shows that the majority of the Township situated in the Allegheny Plateau province is actually part of the plateau’s foothills.

Another important physiographic division is that of watersheds. Each run, stream, creek, and river forms a channel that receives water from its upslope surface areas. By definition, channels occupy the lowest part of these physiographic features. The ridge which separates the land that drains into one stream from the land that drains into another is called a divide. A drainage area or watershed of a stream can be defined as that area enclosed by the divide.

In areas undergoing growth and development, watershed delineation and subsequent management are important long-range planning considerations. Land use management, water supply, floodplain management, and recreation use are all issues which can be planned and/or managed on a watershed basis. In addition, watershed delineations can help illustrate the direction and flow of surface drainage and groundwater supplies. Map 17 on page IX-4 depicts the major watersheds in Centre County and Map 18 on page IX-4A shows each of the Township’s watersheds. As shown, all of Worth Township is included in the Bald Eagle Creek Drainage Area. Several smaller watersheds in the municipality (including watersheds for Oliver Run and Laurel Run) drain into Bald Eagle Creek.

2. Geoloav

The bedrock geology of the Allegheny Plateau province is represented by Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian rocks consisting mainly of sandstone, I shale, limestone, and conglomerate formations. Coal is present in the northern part of Centre County. In the Ridge and Valley province, bedrock geology includes Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian rocks consisting primarily of dolomite, limestone, sandstone, quartzite, conglomerate and shale formations.

Much of Centre County is also underlain by carbonate rocks (rocks J containing varying quantities of limestone and dolomite minerals). Virtually all of the County’s valleys are made up of this carbonate geology. The significance of these formations is three-fold. First, the higher quality limestone and dolomite deposits can be mined and used for cement, agricultural lime, crushed aggregate, and roadstone, and can also be used in the manufacture of glass, filler and whiting.

Second, because carbonate rocks are soluble in water, underground waterways _.I formed as a result of the dissolving process provide significant groundwater resource potential. These groundwater areas are also often responsible for

J IX - 2 *. .>: . J.', ALLEGHENY --.' PLATEAU ALLEGHENY m 1 P LATE A U J PROVINCE Map 15 FOOTHILLS

CENTRE COUNTY PENNSY a LVA hl I A

k I 0

PHYSIOGRAPHY DRAINAG€ AREAS & COMMUNITY WATERSHEDSo.lb.uu,L..”ll--

. .- i 1 augmenting and stabilizing stream flow during periods of dry weather. And third, the weathering of carbonate rocks has created highly productive agricultural soils which also support diverse and productive wildlife habitats.

While these carbonate areas can be considered assets, they can also pose limitations for development. Surface collapses or subsidences, groundwater contamination, and locally high groundwater tables can result. Thus, all sites over carbonate geology areas should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that construction will be free from collapse and will prevent pollution of groundwater supplies. Southeastern Worth Township, in the Bald Eagle Valley south of U.S. Route 220, contains carbonate geology. Other geologic formations comprising the remainder of the Township are shown on Map 19 (page IX-5A).

3. ToDoaraphv

The formation of the Allegheny Plateau began after the Paleozoic marine and nonmarine deposition. During the late Paleozoic era, regional uplift from the southeast caused the area to rise uniformly, without much disturbance to bedrock altitudes. The topography of today is a result of dissection of this plateau by streams that gave the area its rolling hills. The Paleozoic beds of the Ridge and Valley province underwent lateral compression from the southeast that formed mainly deeply folded anticlinal and synclinal features. The final stage of erosion followed the last period of compressional uplift. Different bedrock lithography and exposure in this complex network of folds has resulted in the development of broad and narrow valleys and ridges.

Centre County’s topography is characterized by extremes in elevation. The highest elevation is 2,600 feet above sea level and can be found in Rush Township, at the Blair County line, while the lowest elevation, 575 feet above sea level, is the Bald Eagle Creek channel at the Clinton County line. Elevation changes in Worth Township range from 2,260 feet above sea level in the extreme northwest corner of the municipality to 920 feet above sea level at the intersection of Route 220 and Ardery Hollow Road.

As a result of these variations in elevation, low-lying areas of the Bald Eagle Valley are especially susceptible to periodic temperature inversions. A temperature inversion is a condition that occurs on a clear day or night when cool air is trapped in the valley by a mass of warm air. Air circulation is restricted during such events, and in many instances, dense fog forms, limiting visibility and making driving hazardous.

From a planning standpoint, topography is a significant factor in determining how land can be used. The more level the land, the more uses the ground can support. The greater the slope, the more restrictive and limited the potential land uses. As slope increases, so does the cost of development and the impact of building on the environment. The topography of Worth Township can best be described as narrow stream valley hollows surrounded by rolling to steep hills and mountain ridges.

IX - 5 i While the slope of a sizeable portion of Worth Township has and will likely I continue to limit the municipality’s future development potential, it nonetheless creates an unusually beautiful and picturesque landscape. Land level enough for residential, commercial and some agricultural activity exists in the valley areas of the Bald Eagle Creek, and in Reese, Sunnyside and Ardery Hollows, while other residential development is situated in the plateau areas (Flat Rock) in the northern part of the Township.

The topography of Worth Township can be divided into four categories: 1 slopes less than 8%, slopes between 8% and 15%, slopes between 15% and 25%, and slopes over 25%. These groupings were selected for a number of reasons. The slopes less than 8% generally present little if any topographic constraints for development. The 8% to 15% slope areas can be developed in most cases, but may require more detailed, skilled engineering design and the application of technical building procedures. Development becomes much more difficult when slopes exceed 15%. While some residential development is possible in the 15% to 25% slope areas, construction costs escalate and erosion generally becomes a problem. Areas with slopes exceeding 25% have very limited value for development of any kind. Table 65 below estimates the percentage of the Township’s land in each category. (See also Map 20, page IX-6A, for a more specific illustration of the Township’s slope areas.)

TABLE 65

Percent of Slope Worth Township, Centre County

Development Slope % of Land Area Constraints i

.__ 1 Less than 8% 15% No Limitations

8-15% 10% Slight Limitations

15%-25% 35% Moderate Limitations i

Over 25% 40% Severe Limitations

Source: Centre County Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, August 1981, and Centre County GIS data, 1996. Land area estimates by Landplan, Inc., October 1998.

As shown on Map 20, the steepest slopes in the Township are found in the ridge areas of the valley hollows running up to the Allegheny Front, along the municipality’s northern border, and on Bald Eagle Mountain along the Township’s

IX - 6 southern border. Excessive slopes (slopes exceeding 15%) make up the largest segment of the municipality’s topography. More moderate slopes are found in the terraces along East and West Mountain Roads and in many of the small stream valleys, including Laurel and Oliver Runs. Flatter ground makes up the remainder of the Township, generally in the valley hollows and along Bald Eagle Creek.

4. Soils

Historically, knowledge of soils was mainly necessary for agricultural purposes, but today soil types carry implications for development. Construction of buildings (ease of excavation, cut-slope stability, foundation stability, and ground water control), and efficiency and operation of sub-surface sewage disposal systems (where public sewer facilities are not available), require careful soils analysis for optimum results. A brief examination of the impacts of soils on both development and agricultural activities follows. (See also Maps 21, 22, and 23.)

* General Soils

A detailed assessment of the soils in Centre County was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their work was completed and their findings were published in the Soil Survev of Centre County, issued in August 1981. The General Soil Map in this document shows three major types of generalized soil groupings in Worth Township (the Berks-Weikert Association, the Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville Association, and the Hazleton- Laidig-Andover Association) and smaller portions of two other soil classifications (the Hazleton-Clymer Association and Ungers Association). Berks-Weikert soils can be found in the central portion of the Township, from-U.S. Route 220 north to the foothills of the Allegheny Plateau; the Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville grouping in the low plateau area of the northern third of the Township; and the Hazleton- Laidig-Andover classification extends throughout the southern third of the municipality, from Route 220 south almost to the Township line. Soils in the Hazleton-Clymer association can be found in the northernmost reaches of the municipality, while the Ungers soils are situated along the Township’s southern boundary. Although detail provided on this map is not sufficient to plan specific building or road sites, it provides general information about the location of each of the Township’s major soil types. (More specific details can be found in the County Soil Survey, and the location of the Township’s generalized soils is shown on Map 21.) A geologic description and some basic information about each of the municipality’s general soil categories is provided below.

Soils in both the Berks-Weikert and the Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville Associations were formed of residual material weathered from shale in the Ridge and Valley province. (In essence, they resulted from erosion of the Bald Eagle Ridge.) The Berks-Weikert grouping is characterized as dominantly sloping to very steep, with moderately deep and shallow, well- drained soils underlain by acid shale bedrock. While similar in most respects to the Berks-Weikert association, the Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville category consists of deep, well-drained and moderately well-drained soils.

IX - 7 The landscape in both of these associations is hilly upland dissected by streams. Most of the gentler slopes are used for farming, and the steeper soils are mostly in woodlands. The main limitation for most uses in the Berks-Weikert category is the moderate and shallow depth to shale bedrock. The primary limitation to development in the Leck Kill grouping is the steepness of the soil; in the Albrights soils, a seasonal high water table and moderately slow permeability; and in Meckesville soils, moderately slow permeability and surface stones. Each soil type also presents severe limitations for the placement and operation of sub-surface sewage disposal systems.

Both the Hazleton-Laidig-Andover Grouping and the Ungers Association consist of soils which were formed from residual and colluvial material weathered from sandstone on ridges. (In essence these soils resulted from erosion of the Allegheny Plateau.) The Hazleton-Laidig-Andover group generally consists of gently sloping to very steep, deep, well-drained and poorly-drained soils, underlain by acid sandstone bedrock. The Ungers group is composed of gently sloping to moderately steep, deep, well- drained soils.

Characterized by dominant hills and steep ridges with narrow valleys I between them, most of the Hazleton-Laidig-Andover classification is in woodland, as its soils are particularly well suited for this use. The main limitation to most other uses are the surface stoniness, the extensive areas of steep to very steep soils, and the moderately slow permeability or slow permeability of the Laidig and Andover soils. The landscape of the Ungers soils on the other hand is a rolling upland with considerable woodland areas. Surface stoniness is the main limitation of this association. And, while most of the soil groupings within these associations are identified as presenting severe limitations for sub-surface sewage disposal systems, there are a few areas within the Hazleton and Ungers soils where only moderate limitations are present.

The soils included in the Hazleton-Clymer Association were formed of residual material weathered from sandstone and shale on the Allegheny Plateau. They typically consist of gently sloping to very steep, deep, well- drained soils underlain by acid sandstone bedrock. Most of the acreage in this classification remains wooded because the soils are commonly stony and many of the mountainous areas are inaccessible. The main limitations to development in this category are surface stoniness and the areas of steep and very steep soils. In addition, both of these soil types present moderate to severe limitations for sub-surface sewage disposal systems.

* Aaricultural Soils

As noted earlier in this Section, soil types can also indicate the agricultural production potential of a given area. The fertile limestone soils of Centre County have historically supported a strong farming economy. And, although the number of farms has decreased by more than 50% over the past century, farming is still an i . <.\ IX - 8 active, viable industry in most areas of the county. Pressures from developers to convert farmland to other land uses may however increase in the near future as demand escalates for additional residential, commercial and industrial sites in the vicinity of I-99/U.S. Route 322.

Areas of prime farmland soils and additional farmland of statewide importance have been specifically identified by the Soil Conservation Service in the ,. County's Soil Survey. In Worth Township, it is estimated that as much as 40% of the municipality contains valuable agricultural soils. Map 24 illustrates the location of these farmland soils. Areas of Class I prime farmland soils are situated in the Bald Eagle Valley adjacent to Bald Eagle Creek, while most of the Class II soils in the Township are in the stream valleys of Laurel and Oliver Runs and in the hollows adjacent to Reese, Sunnyside and Ardery Hollow Roads.

In addition to producing crops, agricultural lands are important to Centre County and to the Bald Eagle Valley for other reasons. They help to regulate the flow and quality of groundwater by serving as recharge areas. In combination with forested areas, they provide wildlife habitat. And they provide valuable open space between the county's urban areas.

Under the Pennsylvania Agricultural Securities Act (Act 43 of 1981, as amended by Act 149 of 1988), steps have been taken to protect farmland from encroachment and to preserve agricultural acreage. The program allows farmers to petition their municipal governing body to create a Security Area where at least 500 acres of land are involved. The acreage need not be contiguous and can involve many property owners. Participation in an Agricultural Security Area is strictly voluntary and applications for formation of the Area must be initiated-by the property owners. Once the Security Area is established, the designation provides participating property owners with special consideration from local and state governments. For example, the local government may not impose regulations which unreasonably restrict farm structures and practices, nor may normal farming operations be considered a "nuisance"when executed properly or with care. Also, special reviews must occur whenever local authorities propose to condemn agricultural land; these reviews assure that the municipality has explored all other reasonable and prudent alternatives to the taking of farmland.

In 1987, Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly elected to support a $100 million bond issue to be used for the purchase of agricultural preservation easements. Legislation was then developed which allowed counties to assess, negotiate and purchase the development rights of farms or farm ground situated in an approved Agricultural Security Area as a means of preserving the agricultural integrity of the land. Most of the counties in the state, including Centre County, have made financial and policy commitments to the program, created the necessary review boards, and begun purchasing the development rights of farmlands in their jurisdictions.

In July 1992, 1,376 acres of land in Worth Township were placed in an Agricultural Security Area. To date, none of the development rights for these acres have been purchased by the county. This may be due in part to the fact that there

IX - 9 are limited areas of Class I high quality soils in Worth Township, or that very few of the participating property owners have requested their land be included in the development rights purchase program. The locations of the Township’s Agricultural Security Areas are depicted on Map 25, page IX-IOA. (Another 1,466 acres have recently been proposed for designation as Agricultural Security Areas and will likely be approved by July 1999.)

5. Floodplains and Wetlands

Approximately 10% of Worth Township is considered to be floodplain according to maps prepared for the Township by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and dated August 15, 1989. The maps show which areas of the Township are subject to inundation during a 100-year frequency flood event. (See Map 26 for the designated floodplains in Worth Township.) !

To maintain its eligibility in the NFIP and assure the availability of federally subsidized flood insurance for Township residents, the municipality must regulate development in its 100-year floodplains. As early as 1989, Township Supervisors in Worth Township had adopted provisions aimed at discouraging placement of i developments and the investment of sizeable sums of money in floodplains, and required that any development that did occur in such areas be suitably J floodproofed to limit or avoid unnecessary flood damage.

In addition to its identified floodplain areas, the Township also contains several areas which have soils indicating the possibility of wetlands. These too are areas where development should be avoided. Areas containing identified wetlands or hydric soils (soils characterized by an abundance of moisture), are located throughout the Township, generally in the vicinity of Bald Eagle Creek, Laurel or Oliver Runs, or the smaller tributary streams flowing through the hollows. (See Map I 27 for an illustration of the Township’s hydric soil areas.) Wetlands and hydric _. soils areas are valuable environmental resources and should be protected from encroachment to the extent possible. They serve at least three important purposes: they act as natural ponding areas to hold flood waters during times of high water: they are ground water recharge areas; and they serve as natural habitat areas for many species of birds and wildlife. As Map 27 shows, hydric soils comprise about 25% of the Township’s total land area.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recognizes wetlands as valuable resources and requires replacement of wetlands lost to development. The Department’s wetland mitigation permitting requirements can make development of these areas difficult and expensive. To avoid destroying these environmentally sensitive areas, development should always include a thorough examination of a site’s soil profile. Such site-specific determinations could be an important key in discovering and identifying the location of hydric soils or potential wetland areas. In fact, PADOT will be building several new wetland areas in Worth Township to replace those lost to construction of 1-99.

IX- 10 6. Other Natural Resources

One of Worth Township's greatest assets is its natural and scenic beauty. From the wooded hillsides and dramatic slopes of the Allegheny Plateau and the Bald Eagle Mountain to the narrow stream valleys bisecting the Allegheny Foothills, the area's diverse topography presents a spectacular aesthetic setting. Scenic vistas occur throughout the municipality and add to the allure of the community's rural character. Two specific geologic formations in the immediate vicinity of Worth Township have been recognized statewide for their outstanding scenic qualities: Skytop in Huston Township and Wolf Rocks in Rush Township.

Wildlife, bird and plant habitat areas abound, not only in the forested segments of the community but in brushy valley areas adjacent to Bald Eagle Creek. Woodcock habitat areas, for example, were formally identified along the Bald Eagle Creek in Worth Township as part of PADOT's 1-99 Corridor Study, and records on file with the Carnegie Museum of Natural History indicate that the endangered Small-Whorled Pogonia (a small, delicate orchid) may be found in the oak and oak-hickory forests of Centre County. The Bald Eagle Ridge has also been identified as an important bird area by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Audubon Society.

High quality streams in the region also provide excellent opportunities for fishing. Bald Eagle Creek and Laurel Run in Worth Township have both been designated as "approved trout streams" by the State, qualifying them to be stocked with trout by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Groundwater resources assuring adequate water supplies are available throughout the region, and mineral resources can be found in the area's rock strata. While the iron industry played a major role in the county's economy in the late 1700s and early 1800s, by the end of the 19th century iron production had ceased. Limestone and coal soon became the area's major mineral resources. By 1975, limestone and dolomite extracting industries employed 500 persons in the county, and bituminous coal companies employed over 400 individuals. Although neither major limestone formations nor coal deposits are located in Worth Township, the old stone quarry and McFeely's Brickyard located on the north face of Bald Eagle Ridge produced considerable quantities of brick for the iron ore kilns of Pittsburgh's steel industry until the middle of the current century. The quarry has recently been purchased by a major road construction company.

B. EXISTING LAND USES

For planning purposes, the Township's existing land uses can be divided into at least nine different categories: six groupings of developed land uses: and three of undeveloped activities. Included in the "developed" category are residential, commercial, public, transportation, utility, and mineral extraction uses. "Undeveloped" uses include agricultural lands, forest or woodland areas, and other open or unused space. A brief description and discussion of each category follows and a Table is presented at the conclusion of the Chapter showing the approximate acreage and percentage of each of

IX- 11 the land uses as they exist today. In addition, Map 28, also found at the end of this Chapter, illustrates the location of each of the existing land use types as determined by the Centre County Land Use Survey in 1996.

1. Residential

This category includes all residential uses -- single family homes (attached and detached), multi-family dwelling units, and mobile homes (either independent or as part of a mobile home park).

The dominant type of residence found in Worth Township is the single family detached dwelling, either farmhouses which are scattered throughout the municipality or more recently constructed housing units. (Of 279 total dwelling units counted in the Township during the 1990 Census, more than three-quarters, or 21 1 units, were identified as single family detached dwellings. Another 23%, or 65 units, were mobile homes. (See also Table 41 on page Vll-3.)

An assessment of the data compiled using the County’s GIS information indicates that approximately 450 acres of land in Worth Township, or about 3.2% of the municipality’s land area, is currently being used for residential purposes.

2. Commercial J This category includes all business establishments, including wholesale and retail trade activities, personal service operations, auto and equipment sales and service facilities, professional services and entertainment enterprises, and I restaurant or other food service establishments. (There are no-manufacturing or industrial establishments in Worth Township, primarily because of the municipality’s unsuitable topography and its lack of municipal sewer and water facilities.)

A field survey conducted by Landplan, Inc., in June 1998 identified at least I 30 commercial or business establishments in Worth Township. Another 15 or so commercial operations were identified in the Borough of Port Matilda. Although most of the retail activity in this vicinity is located along U.S. Route 220 or Route 322, a growing number of in-home businesses were found throughout the Township. (See also Table 13, page IV-7, for a listing of the businesses in Worth Township.) i The County’s GIS data revealed that approximately 23 acres of land in the Township were devoted to commercial use in 1996, excluding land areas occupied by in-home businesses. (An additional 9.5 acres in the Borough of Port Matilda were similarly used.) Thus, a very small portion of the Township, only 0.2%’ is used commercially. 1

3. Public

The public land use classification includes all those land areas set aside for government and municipal purposes, religious and cultural facilities, social and health service organizations, public meeting places or community halls, schools or

IX- 12 other educational facilities, and cemeteries.

Once again, very little of Worth Township actually falls into this category. The GIS data indicate that there are only 9 acres of public lands in the municipality, including the Township Maintenance Shed on Shady Dell Road, the Black Oak Church and Cemetery along U.S. Route 322, the Church Camp on West Mountain Road near its intersection with Reese Hollow Road, the Church of God on Laurel Run Road, and the Cemetery at the intersection of Sunnyside Hollow and Ardery Hollow Roads.

4. TransDortation

This land use category includes all streets, highways, railroads, rights-of- way and easements in the Township used for public access. Transportation or transportation-relatedfacilities, such as the truck escape ramp north of Port Matilda and PADOT’s Maintenance Garage on Route 220, are also included in this group.

In addition to the 105 acres occupied by actual roadways, railroads and parking areas in Worth Township, the County’s GIS data reveal that another 354 acres of open space in the municipality are related to or are part of the community’s transportation network. Overall, as much as 3.3% of the Township’s total land area is used for transportation purposes.

5. Utilities

Power line rights-of-way, utility sites and buildings are included in this classification.

According to County GIS data, 78 acres in Worth Township are used by GPU/Pennelec and Ailegheny Power utility transmission lines, and another 4 acres of the Township’s land is occupied by utility structures or facilities; Le. Port Matilda’s well field on the north slope of Bald Eagle Mountain and the Borough’s Sewage Treatment Plant located just east of the Borough boundary. Together, these uses account for about 0.6% of the total land area in Worth Township.

6. Mines/Quarries

Those areas of the Township which have been mined or contain quarrying activities are included in this category.

The area of the old stone quarry, which runs along the Bald Eagle Ridge, is considered to be part of this land use, as are a few other smaller areas along Route 220 where stone or gravel were excavated at one time. Despite the apparent size of the old quarry, the GIS data show that only 0.3%, or 38 acres, of the Township’s land area is devoted to mining or mineral extraction operations.

7. Aariculture

This category includes all lands used for agricultural purposes, including

IX - 13 cultivation, pasturing, or space occupied by buildings providing storage or associated farm facilities.

Although agricultural activities in the Township do not occupy a significant portion of the municipality's total land area, almost twice as much land is used for agricultural purposes as is used for all of the municipality's "developed" land uses combined. (All of the "developed" land uses added together account for 7.7% of the Township acreage, while agriculture alone utilizes just under 13%.) According to the County data, as much as 1,735 acres of the Township were devoted to agricultural use in 1996.

a. Forest/Woodlands

All forested or wooded areas of the Township are part of this classification.

It This land use occupies the largest percentage of Worth Township. is i estimated that almost 10,450 acres, or 76%, of the Township's land is forested or covered by trees. Most of this wooded land is located in the steep sideslope areas of the municipality's many hollows, on the slope above Mountain Road, and along the face and ridge of Bald Eagle Mountain. With so many undeveloped wooded acres, it is easy to see why residents consider the Township to be rural.

9. Open Space t

All those "undeveloped" or vacant areas of the Township which are not 1 included in another category fall within this classification, such as unused agricultural lands and vacant lots. In addition, non-commercial recreational.uses and water areas are also included in this category.

Cleared land not used for cultivating or pasturing and lots with no buildings, are considered as open space or vacant land. Those portions of the Township covered by ponds, streams, and other water bodies, as well as those acres occupied by natural recreational uses, are considered to be part of this classification. The County's GIS data places roughly 516 acres of Worth Township in this category, or about 3.8% of the municipal land area.

Table 66 on the next page shows the total acreage utilized by each land use classification just described, as calculated by Centre County's GIS System.

..1 i IX - 14 I TABLE 66

Existing Land Uses Worth Township

1998

Developed Land Uses

Land Use Estimated Acreaae % of Total Land Area *

Residential 447 acres 3.2% Commercial 23 acres 0.2% Public 9 acres 0.1% Transportation 459 acres 3.3% Utilities 82 acres 0.6% Mines/Quarries 38 acres 0.3%

TOTAL DEVELOPED 1,058 acres 7.7%

UndeveloDed Land Uses

Land Use Estimated Acreaae % of Total Land Area *

Agriculture 1,735 acres 12.6% Forest/Woodlands 10,448 acres 75.9% Open Space 506 acres 3.7% Recreation 2 acres 0.0% Water 8 acres 0.1%

TOTAL UNDEVELOPED 12,699 acres 92.3%

* Total Township area is approximately 13,757 acres.

Source: Centre County Land Use Survey, 1996, Centre County GIS Data, June 1996, and field survey by Landplan, Inc., June 1998.

IX- 15 CHAPTER 10 - GOALS & OBJECTIVES CHAPTER 10

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

As explained in Chapter 1 of this document, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code has provided local governments in the Commonwealth with the tools and mechanisms to guide the future growth and character of their communities. With this statute the State Legislature attempted to provide protection for the health and general welfare of the Commonwealth’s citizens by empowering local governments to prepare, enact and implement sound, reasonable, and properly crafted local land use control regulations. The power to determine what is considered appropriate in and for each community was vested with the local governments so that specific goals and objectives could be developed for and by each individual municipality, and so that each would be able to define its own future. It was further recognized in this legislation that each community can best establish its own future goals and directional policies when such strategies are based on clearly identified past and present conditions and projected future trends.

Township planners will, in this Chapter, attempt to provide for the health, safety and welfare of present and future generations in their municipality by setting forth specific goals and objectives regarding development. The goals and objectives will be based on the implications set forth in the background chapters of this document (Chapters 2-9), and the concerns and desires of the Township residents as they were expressed in the Public Opinion Survey conducted in early 1997. Policies and recommendations for achieving the acknowledged goals and objectives will then be presented in Chapter 11.

A. STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

It is the purpose of this Plan to coordinate the harmonious development of Worth Township and its environs in accordance with the area’s present and future needs. Through the identification of realistic growth policies and recommendations, it is hoped that a solid foundation will be laid upon which the Township Supervisors can base future decisions regarding land use, housing, transportation, and community facilities, services and utilities.

The overall objective of this Comprehensive Plan is to preserve a pleasant, safe and

I convenient environment in the Township for living, working, and the enjoyment of leisure- time activities.

B. DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

In order to help formulate realistic goals and objectives to guide the future development of the municipality, Township planners first identified and evaluated the community’s assets; i.e. those aspects of the municipality that might attract and sustain development, as well as any limitations or possible constraints to growth. Their findings I x-1 and implications for future growth of the Township, supported by the results of the Public Opinion Survey, are as follows.

COMMUNITY STRENGTHS

1. Geoaraphic Location

Worth Township is located slightly west of the geographic center of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, approximately 15 miles west of Bellefonte, the seat of Centre County government, and about 10 miles northwest of State College, the focus of many of the County’s activities. Major employment centers in both of these locations, as well as in Philipsburg, Tyrone and Altoona are situated within reasonable commuting distance, as are plentiful shopping and commercial interests. Educational, cultural, and healthcare facilities, and recreational

opportunities are also readily accessible via the network of state, federal and local 1 roadways located in or near the Township. Worth Township’s location clearly combines the benefits of rural living with the conveniences of easily accessible urban areas. The community’s location therefore makes it especially attractive for future residential growth. Its appeal for commercial and industrial development will also likely increase as construction of 1-99 and improvements to U.S. Route 322 link the Township to regional markets, retail outlets and additional consumers.

2. Transportation Network and Accessibilitv

As noted above, a sophisticated highway network provides accessibility both to and from Worth Township. U.S. Routes 220 and 322 provide ample entry to the i municipality from the north, east, south and west, and also provide excellent connection to the area’s other prominent interstate/intrastate highways (1-99 and 1-80). As a result the Township is connected to many of the country’s larger metropolitan areas and broader, regional markets.

Internally, the Township’s 23+ miles of state and local roads assure access to and from all parts of the municipality. Because of their location in and through the community’s narrow stream valleys and hollow areas, these roadways provide critical support for existing development and will likely affect the location and intensity of future residential growth and economic development.

Details in several Chapters of this document have noted the historical importance of the Bald Eagle Valley as a transportation corridor. In addition to the roadways described above, railroads running through the valley also connect the region to cities and markets well beyond the county. Although these facilities are .i not currently being used to a great extent in Worth Township, they could attract 1 certain types of industrial operations in the future as the price for rail shipping 1 services becomes more competitive and cost-effective. i

3. Rural Character and Quality of Life

Many people consider the character of an area and the personality of its residents before selecting a place to live or purchase property. The quiet, natural 1 .i x-2 beauty of Worth Township, from its wooded, unspoiled hillsides to its peaceful stream valleys and broad farm landscapes, translates to a very attractive rural environment. An obviously slower lifestyle pace, a lower overall cost of living, and an emphasis on heritage and family values enhance the municipality’s desirability and its appeal.

These characteristics were undoubtedly responsible for much of the population growth experienced in the Township over the past 20 years and will continue to attract development in the future.

4. Educational Opportunities

The quality of a community’s educational system is critical in attracting young families to locate or stay in the Township, thereby helping to retain the local tax base.

The Bald Eagle Area School District provides an outstanding elementary and secondary public school system and supports a well-respected cooperative vocational/technical learning program with the Penns Valley and Bellefonte Area School Districts. The value and effectiveness of these programs over the past 20 years is illustrated by the increase in the percentage of Township students receiving high school diplomas and those advancing to post-secondary education. This training has resulted in better-prepared, more highly-skilled workers and a larger employed labor force throughout the School District.

Numerous excellent post-secondary educational opportunities are also available within easy access of Worth Township residents. Penn. State, the largest and closest of these facilities, is situated in State College and has become a world renowned learning and research institution. (See Chapter 5 for further details of available post-secondary education opportunities.)

5. Housina Stock

Figures presented in Chapter 7 show that the increase in housing units in Worth Township over the past 20 years has essentially paralleled the municipality’s population growth; that is, as demand for residential dwellings increased, the number of housing units constructed increased to meet the demand. The exceptionally high occupancy rate of these units also indicates the stability of the municipality’s population. While the number of vacant or available housing units may be low and the overall variety of housing types may be limited, most existing units are well-maintained, with values at least comparable to other rural/suburban areas of the County.

Housing costs for both homeowners and renters in Worth Township are considerably less than they are countywide. In fact, the figures show that Township residents need almost 3% less of their monthly income to meet housing expenses than do homeowners throughout the County as a whole. As additional people begin looking for more affordable housing, areas like Worth Township will feel an increasing pressure to fill those demands.

x-3 6. PhvsioaraDhic Relief and Topoaraphv

The Township’s varying topographic relief provides an appealing, aesthetically pleasing landscape. Despite the many drawbacks involved in developing steeper-sloped areas, builders seemingly welcome the challenge to be able to maximize the area’s scenic vistas and natural qualities. As indicated in Chapter 9, about 15% of the Township’s land is level enough (less than 8% slope) to present few if any limitations to development, while the remainder of the

municipality (those areas with slopes above 8%) will require more detailed, skilled I engineering designs and the utilization of highly technical building techniques if they are to be developed. Even so, only the steepest areas (those exceeding 25%) will likely seriously limit development.

7. Proximitv to Outdoor Recreation

A variety of outdoor recreation areas and facilities are situated within close proximity of the Township. Two such facilities are located in neighboring Port Matilda; one is the Borough’s 10-acre Community Park and the other is a 3.5 acre recreational area adjacent to the Port Matilda Elementary School. Many Township residents, both youth and adults, participate in sporting activities at these facilities. Another highly regarded recreational facility, Black Moshannon State Park, is located in Rush Township, midway between Philipsburg and Unionville. This Park covers 3,400 acres and includes a 250-acre lake. Hiking, fishing, boating, swimming, family camping, and organized youth tenting are offered at this facility. Over 3,000 acres of the Park are open for hunting and trapping. Moshannon State Forest surrounds Black Moshannon State Park, with a corner of the State Forest in Worth Township, north of the-intersection of Mountain Road and Ardery. Hollow Road. Six other State Parks, State Picnic Areas, or State Forests are also located throughout Centre County for the enjoyment of the county’s population. More than 23,000 acres in neighboring Rush Township have been set aside as State Game Lands (# 33 & # 60) and are available for hunting deer, turkey and bear, and the region’s many high quality streams (including Laurel Run, Oliver Run and Bald Eagle Creek in Worth Township) provide excellent opportunities for fishing. Other readily accessible outdoor recreational facilities include the Keystone Gliderport at Julian, Tussey Mountain Ski Resort in Harris Township, and several golf courses in and near State College. The proximity and availability of such a wide range of recreational opportunities may draw new residents to Worth Township.

COMMUNIW UMlTATlONS

1. Soils Suitabilitv

Although a small number of households in Worth Township are served by the Port Matilda Borough Sewer System, the vast majority of residents must rely on individual, on-lot sub-surface sewage disposal systems. According to the County’s Soil Survey, most of the major soil types found in the Township are unsuitable or present limitations to the proper functioning of such systems. More specifically, the soils of the Berks-Weikert Association found in the southern half of

x-4 the Township present severe limitations because of their shallow depth to bedrock, and the Leck Kill-Albrights-Meckesville Soils Grouping, located in the northern portion of the Township, offer moderate to severe limitations due to their slope, depth to bedrock, and an abundance of large stones or coarse fragments. In addition, the seasonally high water table and moderately slow permeability of the Albrights and Meckesville soils may limit the effectiveness of sub-surface sewage disposal systems. As a result, some homeowners have begun to turn to alternative techniques such as single family residential treatment systems or spray irrigation systems to find solutions to their sewage disposal problems on sites with unsuitable soils. Continued over-utilization of poor soil areas for development could lead to sub-surface system malfunctions and contamination of groundwater. Since municipal sewer service is not expected to be made available throughout the Township, the suitability of the area's soils for sub-surface sewage disposal will likely play a substantial role in limiting future development.

In addition to the obstacles presented for sub-surface sewage disposal, many of the Township's soils also present limitations for building construction. Ease of excavation, foundation and cut-slope stability, and drainage control are all related to soil type. Slope, seasonal high water table and shallow depth to bedrock are among the limiting factors which affect the construction of buildings in the Township.

2. Aaricultural Soils and Aaricultural Security Areas

Figures presented in Chapter 9 indicate that as much as 40% of Worth Township may contain valuable agricultural soils. The existing land use survey, also presented in Chapter 9, further illustrates that just under 13% of the municipal land area, or about 1,735 acres, were devoted to agricultural use in 1996. To protect these irreplaceable farmlands and to preserve this choice of lifestyle for future generations, approximately 1,400 acres of land in Worth Township were I: voluntarily set aside as an Agricultural Security Area in 1992, significantly reducing I the likelihood that these areas will be developed. (Another 1466 acres are currently being proposed for inclusion and will likely be approved by July 1999.) I' 3. Floodplains and Wetlands

Although comprising a relatively small overall percentage of the Township's land area, floodplains, wetlands and hydric soils areas offer limitations for future growth. Improperly designed or constructed buildings which are permitted to be located in specified floodprone areas could endanger lives and increase potential flood losses and related damages for the municipality as a whole, as well as for communities downstream. Further, encroachment in wetlands or hydric soil areas could lead to the destruction of valuable natural resources, important plant and wildlife habitat, and critical groundwater recharge areas. Locating future growth outside of susceptible floodplain areas and away from identified wetlands or hydric soil areas will allow flooding to occur in the space set aside by nature and should help preserve necessary natural resources and the overall quality of life for present and future generations. Balancing the need to protect these environmentally sensitive areas with the anticipated pressures for development of level areas of the

x-5 Township may present a complex and difficult dilemma for municipal officials, and one that will require careful examination.

4. PhvsioaraDhic Relief and Available Space

While the municipality’s topography can be considered an asset, it also can present limitations to development. For example, uncontrolled or unadvisable development of steep slope areas can cause environment problems, such as destructive soil erosion, accelerated stormwater run-off, contamination of groundwater supplies, and potentially damaging sedimentation of streams, waterways and wetlands. In addition, it can be difficult to construct and maintain adequate roadways to acces.s development in such areas. In the case of Worth Township, since a large percentage of the municipality contains slopes exceeding 15%, it seems probable that the area’s physiographic relief will limit the amount of developable space and severely restrict the construction that does occur.

5. Housina Availability and Affordability

Housing statistics presented in Chapter 7 reveal that at the time of the 1990 census almost 94% of the Township’s dwelling units were occupied, either by owners or renters, leaving just over 6% of the municipal housing supply vacant or available for occupancy. While this situation indicates a positive, stable population base, such a low vacancy rate may also lead to increased pressure to build new units in poorly suited areas or to the conversion of larger existing homes into duplex or other multiple-family residences. Such a demand for housing may also increase the value or cost of available units to the point where some people are unable to afford home ownership or the higher priced rental units. According to 1990 Census information (Table 16), as many of 52.8% of the Township’s households, those with incomes less than $25,000 annually, may find it difficult to purchase a home.

6. Community Services and Facilities

Limited municipal services and facilities could be considered a deterrent to promoting future growth and development in Worth Township. Specifically, there I is no Township police force, and although the State Police provide coverage, their closest facilities are in Rush Township. There are no municipal recreation facilities, no local recycling services, and no Township Building. The community’s small annual budget even limits road maintenance and repairs, requiring them to be scheduled well in advance in order to be accomplished. There are no medical i facilities or health care clinics in the Township (the closest are in State College), -i and limited facilities to house and care for the community’s elderly. The availability, dependability and quality of such services and facilities could be important factors as potential residents, businesses and industrial concerns consider where to locate.

7. MuniciDal Sewer and Water Utilities

The lack of municipal sewer services and public water supplies will limit the type and amount of future development in the Township. While Port Matilda

X-6 Borough’s Water and Sewer Systems could perhaps be expanded to serve areas of the Township, principally those adjacent to Route 220 and Route 322, the majority of the municipality will need to rely on private wells or springs for their water and on sub-surface sewage systems for their sewage disposal. The Township Is physiographic relief and geographic expanse makes it economically impractical, if not physically impossible, to provide municipal sewer or water utilities to the majority of the community- While some smaller-scale package sewage treatment facilities or community water supply systems may be designed to accommodate new developments or to alleviate problems in localized areas of the Township, its seems probable that the rural segments of the municipality will not be served by publicly owned utilities in the time frame covered by this Comprehensive Plan.

Obtaining suitable water for household use from on-site wells can also be a problem. Some wells in the Bald Eagle Valley produce only a small quantity of water, and some produce water that is high in sulfur content.

0. Local Emplovment Opportunities

Although there are numerous employment opportunities in State College, Bellefonte, Philipsburg, Milesburg and in other areas of Centre County, as well as in neighboring Blair and Huntingdon Counties, there are few commercial or industrial employers located in Worth Township. Results of the land use survey conducted in June 1998 identified only 30 commercial or business establishments in the Township, with another 75 or so employers in Port Matilda. An increasing number of in-home businesses were found throughout the Township, supporting the assumption that many of the community’s residents are supplementing their household income through operating home occupations. However, because there are varied employment opportunities within easy access of the Township, it is likely that the lack of local jobs will pose no significant limitation to future growth.

9. Traffic Conaestion and Safety

While U.S. Routes 220 and 322 were identified in an earlier segment of this Chapter as an asset for the Township, because they provide direct access to employment centers, regional markets, and other elements of the state and federal highway system, congestion and safety problems have arisen with the roadways and have been well-documented over the years. To accommodate the staggering volumes of traffic which use these routes, plans have been made to extend 1-99 from the Village of Bald Eagle east through Worth Township to connect with an upgraded Route 322 and the Mount Nittany Expressway. Although these projects should help reduce congestion, particularly on Route 220, there are deep concerns that without improvements to Route 220 north from Martha Furnace to Wingate, safety will remain a critical issue with truck traffic still posing a hazard. In the first four year segment of the current 12-Year Transportation Improvement Program, Centre County and the Centre Region Metropolitan Planning Organization requested over $20 million for safety improvements to U.S. Route 220. If not funded by PADOT in this round, Route 220 improvements must remain a top priority. Subsequent development in the Township will need to be reviewed

x-7 1 !

carefully to avoid compounding or accentuating the problem.

Construction of 1-99 and rehabilitation of U.S. Route 322 will also bring a significant volume of interstate through-traffic to Worth Township. Such increases are likely to impact the Township in a number of ways. First, increased financial support of the local fire and ambulance departments may be necessary as additional equipment will likely be needed to respond to potential incidents. And secondly, it may become more difficult to find volunteers willing to undergo the training necessary to respond to the type of accidents that occur on interstate highways.

10. Accessibility

Without question, the construction of 1-99 and the upgrading of Route 322 through Worth Township will improve the community's overall accessibility to regional markets and employment centers. The fact that both of these roadways are being designed as "limited access" highways may discourage some development, especially commercial and industrial operators. Even though such enterprises may have frontage or exposure along the roadways, the fact that direct access will be limited may actually deter some developers from establishing operations in the Township. The greatest pressure for development will undoubtedly still be focused in the area adjacent to the I-99/322 interchange.

C. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This segment of the Development Plan sets forth reasonable goals and objectives designed to guide and coordinate the orderly growth and development of Worth Township over the next 10-15 years. vhe order of presentation of the goals and objectives is not intended to indicate an order of importance or significance.)

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION & AESTHETICS

QUAUTV OF UFE GOAL: The peaceful, rural environment and exceptional quality of life in Worth Township should be preserved for future generations.

0biectives:

A. Protect the rural lifestyle choice for present and future Township residents.

B. Safeguard the Township's heritage and respect for community. J

C. Maintain the Township's spirit of participation and volunteerism.

D. Recognize the value of the Township's physiographic relief and unique natural features, including its farms and forests.

x-0 E. Protect the Township’s scenic beauty.

GOAL: Development types and densities should be guided and directed to the most appropriate and best-suited locations.

Obiectives:

A. Maintain the character of the Township’s different composite areas; recognize the value and distinct benefits offered by each.

I B. Minimize the acreage disturbed by development by preserving adequate open space.

C. Avoid haphazard or poorly planned development.

E. Assure the compatibility of adjacent land uses.

LAND USE AND UWD USE CONTF?OLS GOAL: Land use policies and regulations should consider the physical capabilities and limitations of the Township’s land and environment.

Obiectives:

A. Ensure that a balance occurs between development and areas set aside as open space.

B. Protect environmentally sensitive areas of the Township: steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas.

C. Avoid potential health hazards from malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems thereby avoiding the need for economically unfeasible sewer line extensions.

D. Assure adequate, reliable, safe water supplies. E. Control stormwater run-off, and limit potential soil erosion and sedimentation ,: problems. ! \ F. Preserve and protect the Township’s natural resources, including the flora and fauna.

GOAL: Land use policies and regulations should ensure that developers thoroughly plan and adequately provide for their proposed i developments without causing undue economic burdens for current I municipal residents and property owners. 1- x-9 Obiectives:

A. Ensure that new development creates no undue financial burden for the Township and current residents.

B. Assure that developers provide, at their own expense, all necessary services and facilities to serve their developments.

C. Protect property values.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SENSrrNE AREAS

GOAL: Environmentally sensitive areas (including steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains, hydric or poor soil areas) and other fragile resource areas (including woodlands, aquifers, or groundwater recharge zones) should be used only in ways which will avoid causing or increasing problems for the Township, its residents, or surrounding municipalities.

0biectives:

A. Prevent inappropriate development of environmentally sensitive areas. B. Protect water quality; preserve the integrity of the municipality’s high-quality streams and groundwater recharge areas.

C. Reduce potential risks to public health caused by malfunctioning sub- 1 surface sewage disposal systems.

D. Prevent soil erosion and sedimentationcaused by uncontrolled or improperly managed stormwater run-off.

E. Preserve those natural areas of the Township that contribute to the well- being of all residents, including the Oliver Run Natural Heritage Inventory site.

AGRICULTURE I GOAL: Agricultural activities within the Township should be encouraged to continue in the future. Valuable farmland soils should be preserved for agricultural use, and agricultural production should be recognized as a sustainable and important economic activity.

Obiectives:

A. Minimize the loss of irreplaceable farmland soils. x-10 3 B. Protect the Township’s rural character.

C. Maintain an important lifestyle choice for present and future generations of Township residents.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

GOAL: Effective stormwater management controls should be incorporated into the design of all new developments, and where necessary, improvements should be made to upgrade existing drainage control facilities.

Obiectives: I A. Minimize problems caused by uncontrolled run-off: erosion; sedimentation or siltation of streams, culverts and drainage swales; and undesirable ponding along Township roads.

6. Protect critical hydric soil areas and maintain the carrying capacities of Bald Eagle Creek, Laurel Run, Oliver Run, and other Township streams to reduce the dangers of flooding.

C. Properly provide for the management of all stormwater generated by new development in the Township.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & COMMERCE

GOAL: Commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-residential development should be encouraged to locate only in areas of the Township designated for such activities in order to reduce conflicts between different land uses and to protect environmentally sensitive 1 areas. 0biect ives :

A. Provide appropriate, accessible space for commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-residential growth and development in the Township consistent with local land-use goals.

B. Preserve the rural character of the Township, while maintaining meaningful employment opportunities within the municipality.

C. Support a sustainable local tax base.

x-11 i HISTORIC PRES ERVATlON

GOAL: The Township’s and region’s heritage should be understood, respected, and protected by Township policies and initiatives. Historically significant structures and sites should be identified, and owners should be encouraged to preserve them for future generations.

0biectives:

A. Preserve the character, culture and heritage of the Township for future generations.

B. Promote an awareness and appreciation of the history and culture of the Township.

C. ‘Preserve historically significant structures and sites in the Township.

HOUSING

GOAL: Suitable, safe residential environments should be maintained and a variety of housing types and styles should be available for Township residents of all ages, family size, and income levels.

0biectives :

A. Assure adequate, safe, affordable living space for all present and future residents of the Township.

1 B. Offer a choice of housing styles and living environments in the Township.

C. Ensure the safety of Township residents and avoid the hazards caused by poorly maintained or dilapidated housing.

TRANSPORTATION

GOAL: An adequate, safe transportation network should be maintained in the Township. t Obiectives:

A. Provide for the safe, efficient movement of people and goods through the Township .

B. Maintain the integrity of the existing street and highway systems by preserving their intended and/or designed carrying-capacities.

x-12 C. Minimize unnecessary or potentially hazardous traffic conflicts at street and driveway intersections.

D. Improve traffic flow and reduce congestion problems along the municipality’s major routes; Le. U.S. Routes 220 and 322.

E. Minimize the costs and maximize the benefits of expenditures for street and highway projects by coordinating State and local road and/or bridge improvement projects.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES

PUBUC UTILITIES

GOAL: Adequate, accessible public utilities, and community facilities and services should remain available for all Township residents.

0biectives:

A. Maintain quality, safe living environments within the Township by protecting the public health, safety and welfare.

6. Maximize the utilization of existing public facilities, services and utilities.

C. Avoid inappropriate and costly extensions of public utilities, community facilities, and municipal services, and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

D. Assure the continuation of competent, efficient police, fire and ambulance services throughout the Township.

EDUC4TlON

GOAL: Quality education and/or educational opportunities should remain available for all residents of the Township.

0biectives:

A. Assure the best possible education remains available for the community’s youth and adult population.

6. Produce highly-skilled, competitive workers for the area’s labor force. C. Attract young couples to settle in the Township, thereby assuring the municipality’s viability and vitality for the future.

X-13 1

RECREATION

60AL: Existing recreational facilities and public areas used by Township residents should be adequately maintained to preserve their integrity and assure their continued use.

Obiectives:

A. Enhance the quality of life for Township residents.

.B. Support a variety of recreational or leisure-time programs and activities for various age and interest groups in the municipality.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

GOAL: Local and regional planning efforts and public sector expenditures should be coordinated to: maximize the effectiveness of such investments; provide for orderly growth and development; and foster a pleasant, safe living environment.

Obiectives:

A. Promote harmonious, coordinated land development throughout the Township and surrounding municipalities.

6. Maintain positive working relationships with County and State governments and regional planning agencies.

C. Open lines of communication regarding all types of public investments with neighboring communities.

D. Provide efficient, effective government.

E. Provide a variety of opportunities to better serve the future needs of the area’s population.

X- 14 CHAPTER 11 m DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1 i

CHAPTER 11

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

This segment of the Comprehensive Plan outlines what are considered to be the most effective strategies for achieving the goals and objectives established in the preceding chapter. Based on the conclusions drawn from the background material presented in Chapters 2 - 9, and the implications for future development of the Township identified in the "assets and limitations" discussion in Chapter 10, a set of specific growth recommendations or policies evolved and will be presented in this Chapter.

A. LAND USE PLAN

1. General Growth Policies and Recommendations

QUAUTY OF UFE

GOAL: The peaceful, rural environment and exceptional quality of life in Worth Township should be preserved for future generations.

Recommendations:

A. Develop local zoning regulations that will consider the character of the

I. various composite areas of the Township and its heritage; will protect existing neighborhoods while accommodating new development; and will prevent pollution of the area's natural resources.

B. Support ideas, concepts and proposals that respect community institutions and neighborhoods.

C. Consider coordinating and sponsoring an annual "Community Clean-up , Day" in conjunction with the County's Solid Waste Department to help maintain the Township's overall appearance and enhance the community's sense of pride.

i D. Encourage underground installation of utilities in new developments, where feasible, or require blending of utilities with the natural environment of the i development sit e. ! E. Minimize the impact of public projects (Le. highways, utility transmission lines, municipal sewer or water projects, etc.) on agricultural land and other I j environmentally sensitive areas of the Township.

I 1 GOAL: Development types and densities should be guided and directed to the most appropriate and best-suited locations. I _I XI - 1 Recommendations:

A. Avoid mixing incompatible land uses, yet maintain neighborhood conveniences and employment opportunities for Township residents, through the develcpment of well-conceived local zoning regulations.

8. Encourage aesthetically pleasing landscaping techniques to enhance the visual quality of the Township’s environment, particularly where residential and non-residential developments meet.

C. Encourage the use of buffer areas or screen plantings in local zoning regulations to ensure the compatibility and protection of adjoining land uses.

LAND USE AND LAND USE CONTROLS

GOAL: Land use policies and regulations should consider the physical capabilities and limitations of the Township’s land and environment.

Recommendations:

A. Develop local zoning regulations that will consider the capacity of the area’s natural resources, including its soils, slope, and water supply to accommodate new development.

B. Promote the use of cluster or other innovative design techniques for new developments in the Township as a means of preserving open space and minimizing the amount of land disturbed by new construction.

C. Protect the Township’s natural areas and its high-quality streams and watersheds, including Oliver Run, Laurel Run, Reese Hollow, and Sunnyside Hollow, by establishing sensitive land-use control regulations.

D. Consider the values of developing a Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance, based on a Joint Municipal Comprehensive Plan, with Port Matilda Borough and/or other surrounding municipalities. Determine if there is sufficient interest on the part of Borough officials to undertake such a planning venture. If so, establish a realistic schedule and pursue grant monies to help defray project costs.

GOAL: Land use policies and regulations should ensure that developers thoroughly plan and adequately provide for their proposed developments without creating undue economic burdens for current municipal residents and property owners.

Recommendations:

A. Thoroughly review all Township subdivision and land development proposals to ensure that developers, through the use of improvement agreements/ i _--t XI - 2 I performance guarantees, provide for all necessary improvements for their developments, including sewer service, water supply, electric service, and stormwater management controls, as well as streets, curbs, and sidewalks where appropriate.

I B. Promote well-planned development for the Township as a means of protecting property values and avoiding financial hardships for current residents.

C. Administer and enforce local zoning and land-use control regulations in an equitable, consistent manner throughout the Township.

D. Participate in programs aimed at sustaining aesthetically-pleasing and environmentally sound development in the 1-99 and Corridor 0 project areas.

EWIRONMEKTALLY SENSITIVE ARl3S

GOAL: Environmentally sensitive areas (including steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains, hydric or poor soil areas) and other fragile resource areas (including woodlands, aquifers, and groundwater recharge zones) should be used only in ways which will avoid causing or increasing problems for the Township, its residents, or surrounding mun i ci pa Iit i es.

Recommendations:

A. Prepare local zoning regulations which discourage the use or disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas.

B. Require developers to provide documentation, along with their subdivision plans, showing that sufficient assessment has been made of the possible environmental constraints of the development site, i.e. wetlands, hydric soil areas, floodplains, etc.

C. Identify and protect groundwater recharge zones by restricting the type and intensity of development in those areas. Require developers to undertake hydrogeologic studies where known water-quantity problems exist to avoid creating adverse impacts on the water supply of adjoining property owners.

D. Maintain an effective, current sewage facilities planning and permitting program for the Township.

E. Explore the benefits of developing a municipal well head protection program to safeguard the quality and availability of the Township’s groundwater.

F. Require builders to prepare and submit appropriate Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control plans, reviewed by the Centre County Conservation District, with all Building Permit applications.

XI - 3 G. Assure that any development in floodplain areas complies with National Flood Insurance Program regulations and provisions of the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act. Maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. H. Develop a thorough listing of the Township's natural resources, including its high quality streams, valuable watersheds, groundwater recharge areas, wetlands and hydric soil areas, and natural heritage inventory sites, and significantly limit future development in those areas through enactment of local zoning and land use control regulations.

I. Support and promote educational programs that foster a greater under- standing of the local environment and the need for protection of its sensitive areas.

J. Identify scenic corridors throughout the Township, and prevent signs and roadside development from encroaching upon natural views and scenic areas.

K. Encourage sound forest management practices to be employed as part of all commercial timber harvesting operations.

L. Require construction of vegetated barriers or other landscaping to minimize the visual, erosion, and noise impact of mining, quarrying, or related storage activities. \

AGRICULTURE

GOAL: Agricultural activities within the Township should be encouraged to continue in the future. Valuable farmland soils should be preserved for agricultural use, and agricultural production should be recognized as a sustainable and important economic activity.

Recommendations:

A. Minimize non-farm encroachment in agricultural areas of the Township through the development of reasonable zoning regulations.

6. Encourage "Clean and Green" tax benefit enrollments for agricultural properties as a means of discouraging subdivision or other types of land development from occurring in those areas.

C. Support current "Agricultural Security Area" designations for agricultural properties and promote additional landowner participation in the program.

D. Support landowner participation in the County's "Purchase of Development Rights" program to protect agricultural properties from development pressures.

E. Support and encourage Century Farm enrollments.

F. Encourage agricultural property owners to participate in various farm-

XI - 4 ! related or land conservation organizations to maintain awareness and knowledge of available preservation assistance programs.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Recommendations:

A. Identify existing drainage or runoff problems and develop a strategy and schedule to correct them.

I B. Require developers to incorporate stormwater management controls into the design of all new subdivisions or land developments. Require sufficient documentation to be submitted to show that such proposed controls will be adequate and will avoid causing adverse impacts on adjoining or down-stream properties.

C. Require developers to include costs for construction of stormwater management control facilities in their performance guarantees to ensure proper installation of approved facilities.

D. Discourage clear-cutting or deforestation of the Township’s steep slopes. Encourage preservation of the municipality’s wooded areas to avoid soil erosion and stormwater management problems. E. Require developers to plant vegetation buffers or retain existing vegetation along streams and watercourses where new development is planned.

F. Support the preparation of stormwater management plans for each of the Township’s watersheds by the Centre County Planning Commission as necessary funding becomes available.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/COMMERCE

GOAL: Commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-residential development should be encouraged to locate only in areas of the I ‘, Township designated for such activities in order to reduce conflicts between different land uses and to protect environmentally sensitive areas.

Recommendations:

A. Continue to support varied employment opportunities for Township

XI - 5 residents while preserving a healthful and pleasant environment and helping to

sustain the local tax base. ~

6. Promote an economy compatible with the character of the community and the quality of its environment.

C. Encourage the development of businesses serving the needs of the local marketplace.

D. Acknowledge the magnitude of industrial activity currently existing throughout the Centre Region, and support the efforts of the Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership and the Altoona Blair County Development Corporation to create additional job opportunities in those areas. Focus Township industrial efforts on meeting local employment goals, rather than competing for large-scale regional industrial operations.

E. Recognize that the topography of the Township will not facilitate large- scale, contiguous industrial or commercial development. Support the location of "village scale" industrial and commercial development clustered around Port Mati Ida.

F. Work with county and regional economic development agencies to help achieve the Township's above-identified commercial/industriaI goals.

G. Recognize agricultural production and timber harvesting operations as important economic activities in the Township and support efforts to preserve such operations for the future. Permit the establishment of related businesses in association with on-going farming operations.

H. Establish provisions addressing lot coverage, setback and buffering requirements, parking and/or loading, lighting, and sign controls in local zoning and land use control regulations to protect adjoining uses and foster the continuity of existing neighborhoods.

I. Require developers to provide all necessary utilities for their developments, including sewer, water, and electric service, either through the extension of existing facilities or the establishment of new supplies.

J. Promote improvements to telecommunications infrastructure that will allow local home-based businesses to compete effectively for work.

K. Encourage local participation in job training and retraining programs to maintain a skilled labor force.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

GOAL: The Township's and region's heritage should be understood, respected, and protected by Township policies and initiatives.

XI - 6 Historically significant structures and sites should be identified, and owners should be encouraged to preserve them for future generations.

Recommendations:

A. Work with local and regional historic organizations and knowledgeable local historians to develop a history of the Township and consult it when new projects or developments are proposed. B. Consider organizing an Historic Committee made up of interested Township residents to identify historically significant structures and sites and determine the benefit of encouraging their registration on state and/or national Historic Registers as a means of preserving the area’s heritage for future generations.

C. Arrange for a local historian to provide a review of historical significance and impact for developments proposed in areas of the Township which have been identified as potentially historic.

2. Future Growth ConceDts or Plan Implications

Specific long-range or future growth strategies or concepts related to land use in Worth Township are identified in this Section of the Development Plan. These concepts are based on an evaluation of existing land uses and associated patterns; projected population increases; estimated future land requirements for basic types of anticipated uses; the functional suitability of the land to support various uses; and the Township’s goals and objectives. (See also the Composite Development Limitations Map on page XI-8A.)

These growth planning concepts and land-use recommendations represent an estimate of the type and amount of development that is likely to occur in the, Township based on the strengths and limitations as presented in Part B of Chapter 10. Consistent with the recommendations of the Centre County Comprehensive Plan, this Plan does not encourage major development of Worth Township but does provide for limited residential and commercial and/or light industrial growth. The land-use recommendations also recognize the importance of preserving the Township’s rural character and its heritage of family values for future generations.

a. The inventory of existing land uses presented in Table 66 of Chapter 9 shows that the majority of the Township’s land area (roughly 76%) is classified as forest or woodland. Agricultural uses account for the second-largest land use, with just under 13%. Other open-space uses, transportation-related facilities, and residential areas each occupy another 3% of the community’s land area. Added together, the Township’s undeveloped uses account for slightly more than 92% of the total land area, while developed uses occur on less than 8% of total acreage.

b. Most of the soils in the Township have been identified as being generally

XI - 7 unsuitable for sub-surface sewage disposal, thereby presenting an obstacle for future growth and substantially limiting such activity. c. Although comprising a relatively small percentage of the Township’s total land area, floodplains, wetlands, and areas having hydric soils render portions of the municipality unsuitable for future development. d. A significant percentage of the Township (as much as 75%) contains slopes in excess of 15%. As a result, the municipality’s topographic relief limits the amount of developable space and will severely restrict growth in these areas. e. Approximately 1,376 acres in the municipality were set aside as Agricultural Security Areas in July 1992. Another 1,466 acres are currently being proposed for such designation and will likely be approved by July 1999. Growth will be less likely to occur in these areas. f. Despite the identified obstacles, the Township will likely continue to experience growth pressure in the future. The vast majority of this pressure will probably result from the construction of 1-99 and the rehabilitation of Route 322 through the community, and the increased accessibility these road improvement projects will provide. g. While much of the Township’s future growth will likely be residential in’nature, some new commercial and/or light industrial land uses are also expected, particularly adjacent to or in the vicinity of the 1-99 and Route 322 interchange. h. Since land suitable for development will be limited by the numerous factors cited above, future residential growth may be higher in density or intensity than previous development. (See Chapter 7.) i. Future residential development may also cater to a different clientele or segment of the population than previously. Since all of the social, recreational and cultural amenities available in the State College area will be located within a short commute once 1-99 is completed, developers may now see the Township and its quiet, rural lifestyle as an ideal location to develop retirement and other types of housing. j. Population projections presented in Chapter 3 indicate that the Township will likely experience a increase of around 250 persons by 2020, a 35.3% increase above the 1990 Census figures. k. Regional economic forecasts appear strong, according to the figures and projections presented in Chapter 4. While little if any of the industrial growth anticipated in the region is expected to occur in Worth Township, the availability of accessible employment within reasonable proximity of the Township will assure the community’s ability to sustain its population base.

I. Township officials and residents alike have indicated a strong desire to protect the municipality’s peaceful, rural environment and its exceptional quality of life. ,

XI - 8 i

The goals and objectives established in Chapter 10 also reflect the community’s desire to maintain existing land-use patterns, to the extent possible, and their fervent hope that all future uses will consider the physical capability of the land to adequately accommodate them. I I! m. Future visions of the Township therefore suggest that land use in the municipality will be divided into at least six distinct categories: residential; village; general commercial; interchange or highway commercial; agriculture; and woodland/conservation.

3. Future Land-Use Recommendations

For future land-use planning purposes, it is therefore recommended that Worth Township be divided into the following six categories.

a. Residential b. Village c. General Commercial d. interchange e. Agriculture f. WoodlandlConservation

Specific recommendations for the location of each land use can be found on the Future Land-Use Recommendations Map. (See Map 30, page 10A of this Chapter.) This Map may also serve as the basis for development of a future Zoning Map for Worth Township.

A brief description of each category follows.

a. Residential

1) Rural Residential - This category’s primary purpose is to identify those areas within the Township where low-density residential development is currently located and where additional development of this nature could be

i, situated in the future. While still maintaining a low density (+ I dwelling unit per i ’, two acres), developments in these areas should be encouraged to cluster in order to avoid encroaching into agricultural and woodland areas more than i necessary.

2) Countryside Estate - The purpose of this designation is to set aside areas I of the Township where residential development can be accommodated at densities that are consistent with the maintenance of a rural countryside character (+ 1 dwelling unit per five acres). Such designation is also intended to encourage the preservation of natural habitats and the Township’s scenic

I values.

XI - 9 b. Villaae

The intent of this designation is to provide land area in the Township for natural expansion of the Borough of Port Matilda. A variety of uses and activities, in keeping with the character of the present community, could be accommodated, including residential and small business uses; professional offices; churches; government buildings; and social or cultural facilities. Moderate density residential uses could also be located in these areas where extensions to the Borough's municipal sewer and water systems are available or can be arranged. c. General Commercial ' These areas establish 'some space outside of designated Village areas for wholesale and retail business activities and service establishments primarily serving

the needs of the local marketplace. Development plans for these activities should i always provide adequate off-street parking and loading areas, and extra care should be exercised in evaluating all proposed points of road ingress and egress for such establishments.

d. lnterchanae I

Space will be set aside in the vicinity of the proposed 1-99 and Route 322 Interchange for commercial and light industrial development. It is anticipated that activity occurring in this area will be designed to serve the needs of the travelling public and therefore will be more intensive in nature than other commercial or light industrial activity occurring in the Township. Where appropriate, all such develop- - ment will be served by municipal sewer and/or water supply systems, or developers will be required to design, construct, and maintain private sewer and water systems sufficient to serve their developments. To maximize utilization of these areas for interchange-typedevelopment, other non-compatible uses will be limited.

e. Aariculture

This category is intended to identify areas within the Township with soils capable of producing agricultural or horticultural products, as well as areas currently accommodating agricultural activities, such as pasture or grazing lands. The designation recognizes the value of preserving irreplaceable soil systems for cultivation and related uses, and seeks to discourage activities which would interfere with the continuance of these uses.

f. Woodland/Conservation

Woodland areas have >beenrecognized as valuable assets in their own right and therefore are established as a separate land-use category. Regulations protecting these areas from inappropriate development or mismanagement will be developed so they can continue to provide wildlife habitat and space for outdoor recreation, as well as yielding commercial timber products. Other environmentally sensitive areas, such as floodplains, wetlands, and segments of the Township with steep slope, are also included in this classification. \

, XI - 10 Acreage allocations for each of the proposed land-use categories as compared to the existing acreage occupied by these uses are set forth in Table 67 (page XI-12).

I (Although there are no formal land-use categories identified or proposed for transportation, utilities, and water as part of the Future Land-Use Recommendations, Table 67 acknowledges that these uses will continue to occupy land within the Township, and includes estimated acreages for them. No acreage estimates are included for the public, mines and quarries, open space and recreation classifications because each land use was absorbed into another category.)

6. HOUSING PIAN

General Growth Policies and Recommendations

GOAL: Suitable, safe residential environments should be maintained and a variety of housing types and styles should be available for Township residents of all ages, family size and income levels.

Recommendations:

A. Develop local zoning regulations which provide for all basic forms of housing, including single and two family dwellings, a reasonable range of multi- family dwellings in various arrangements, and mobile homes and mobile home parks, in order to offer a choice of housing styles for Township residents. Higher density residential uses (such as multi-family dwelling structures and mobile home parks) should however be served by municipal or community sewer and water facilities.

B. Protect the integrity and character of existing residential areas by developing local zoning regulations that limit encroachment by incompatible land uses and -assure appropriate densities.

C. Determine the need for and investigate the availability of housing assistance funds or programs to help with the rehabilitation of homes in the Township, especially those owned by residents with low or moderate incomes, as a means of protecting the existing housing stock and maintaining exterior structure appearances.

D. Support Centre County housing programs and forums aimed at educating i community leaders as well as the public about housing issues, concerns and needs.

XI - 11 TABLE 67

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Land-Use Allocations Worth Township

1998-2013

EX1STI NG PROPOSED

% of Total % of Total Land Use Acreage Land Area Acreage Land Area

Residential 447 acres 3.2%

Rural Residential 1,600 acres 11.6% Village 250 acres 1.8%

Commercial 23 acres 0.2% 325 acres 2.3%

Interchange 154 acres 1.1%

Public 9 acres 0.1%

Transportation 459 acres 3.3% 338 acres 2.4%

Utilities 82 acres 0.6% 82 acres 0.6% Mines/Quarries 38 acres 0.3%

Agriculture 1,735 acres 12.6% 4;232 acres 3-1.O%

Forest/Woodlands 10,448 acres 75.9% 6,768 acres 49.1 %

Open Space 506 acres 3.7%

Recreation 2 acres 0.0%

Water 8 acres 0.1% 8 acres 0.1%

TOTALS 13,757 acres 100% 13,757 acres 100%

Source: Centre County Land Use Survey, 1996; Centre County GIS Data, June i 1996; field survey by Landplan, Inc., June 1998; and Future Land Use Recommendations Map, March 1999. i

XI - 12 i 1 C. TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1. General Growth Policies and Recommendations

GOAL: An adequate, safe transportation network should be maintained in the Township. ! Recommendations:

A. Encourage thorough review by PADOT of all proposed new access points along state-owned collector or arterial highways (especially U.S. Route 220, U.S. Route 322, and S.R. 3023, Reese Hollow Road, and S.R. 3017, Beckwith Road) to

I avoid creating potentially unsafe intersections and hazardous situations. Thoroughly review subdivision and land developments to ensure coordination of these proposals with State and Township highway plans and projects.

B. Require municipal Driveway Permits for the construction of all new driveways or accesses onto Township roads. Develop Driveway Design Guidelines and incorporate them into local land use control regulations to assure the safety of such installations.

C. Require developers to design and construct new streets in accordance with applicable Township standards, and require them to address the impact of their proposals on the existing street system adjacent to and near the development. i D. Separate pedestrian and vehicle circulation routes, especially near schools, churches, and other places of public assembly to avoid creating safety problems.

E. Require the design of all new subdivisions and developments to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. E. Develop standards in local zoning regulations requiring the provision of adequate off-street parking and/or loading areas in new developments.

G. Monitor state and county transportation policies as they relate to proposed or potential improvement projects in and around the Township as a means of coordinating state and local planning efforts.

H. Actively participate in county and regional transportation forums, including transportation-related committees or citizen advisory boards reviewing proposed plans for realignment and reconstruction of U.S. Route 322 (Corridor 0) and U.S. Route 220, to ensure the Township a continued voice in these projects.

I. Continue to lobby PADOT for funds to improve safety along U.S. Route 220 North, especially from Martha Furnace to Wingate.

J. Formalize an ongoing improvement/maintenance programfor all Township- owned roads and bridges, identifying by year those projects intended for completion. Develop a capital improvements program to help plan for future road

XI - 13 I maintenance projects, budget for equipment purchases, and identify potential funding sources.

K. Encourage car-pooling and ride-sharing programs, and the use of public transportation (including the commuter bus service to be provided by CATA beginning in August 1999) to minimize reliance on the automobile for commuting. Consider the establishment of a "Park and Ride" lot in or near the Township through cooperation with neighboring municipalities, CATA, Centre County and the Centre Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

L. Coordinate municipal road improvement projects with other utility installations where possible as a means of minimizing costs.

M. Investigate the feasibility of creating a trail system through the Township and surrounding areas for hiking, bicycling and/or horseback riding, to connect existing and proposed recreational locations and employment sites.

2. Specific Transportation Recommendations

A. Continue active participation in Corridor 0 Advisory Committee meetings to assure the Township's position on alignment/realignment of the roadway is heard. Continue to support alignment alternates that minimize encroachment into the Township and limit the roadway's impact on existing housing, natural areas, high quality watersheds and waterways, and other environmentally sensitive areas of the municipality.

B. Prepare a bi-annual list of candidate projects for submission to Centre County Planning Commission and inclusion on PADOT's 12-Year Program.

C. Work with SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad to minimize safety hazards along the rail line owned by the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority. Ask SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad to co-sponsor training for emergency response personnel in communities located along the rail line.

D. Consider establishing specific design and construction standards for new Township roadways to supersede the standards set forth in the Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

E. Continue the ongoing maintenance of Township roads and bridges. Undertake specific road improvement projects in accordance with the following schedule and as monies become available. (See the Future Transportation Improvement Projects Map on page XI-15A for the location of each proposed project.)

* Applv Oil (1999-2004)

East Mountain Road, Shady Dell Road, Spackman's Hill, Sunnyside Hollow Road (Meyer's to Ardery Hollow Road), Sawmill Road, Ardery Hollow Road

XI - 14 ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF ROAD PROJECTS IN WORTH TOWNSHIP

7ASK 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 IAINTENA NCE ADp& dust Control Oil [MC-301 to dirt roads (Est cost: $1.25/square yard. Yards needed: (16' (road width)'# of miles'5,280)/9). .'awmill Road X X X X X X rdery Hollow Road (Cem to E. Mt Rd) X X X X X X Spring Valley Road X X X X X X I aurel Run Road X X X X X X joskey Road X X X X X X

Seal Coat paved roads with E-3 oil (Estimated cost: $0.72 per square yard. Yards needed: (16' (road width)'miles'5,280)/9). hst Mountain Road X X X X X hady Dell Road X X X X X Spackman's Hill X X X X X C:JflflySide Hollow (Meyer's to Ardery) X X X X X

stone shoulders (Typically bid out - 2A stone (8.50/ton) and MC30 oil ($1.25/square yard); (for oil: 6' '# of miles'5,280)/9) All paved roads X X X X X

n'Ot patch (Binder, Cost: ?/ton; tons needed: ?/mile) East Mountain Road X X X X X est Mountain Road X X X X X

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS h eSUrfaCe paved roads (Typically bid out - 2 .' Binder and 1" Wearing Surface, Cost: $16-17/ton; tons needed: ?/mile) ist Mountain Road X West Mountain Road

. i3DlaCe Culverts (Estimated cost: $28/foot if Township does it; $45/foot if bid out) rv'est Mountain Road X or X Ardery Hollow Road Spackman's Hill X or X Cemetery (by fields) X or X Sawmill Road X or X

.! :One roadwavs- (Typically bid out - 2A stone (8.50/ton) and MC30 oil ($1.25/square yard): (for oil: 16' '# of rniles'5,280)/9) Lrchard Road X SDring Valley Road X

hiden & st raiahten .roadwavs Ardery Hollow Road (north end) X : wmill Road (Riser's) X $ .ring Valley Road X

1- yove siaht distance $ nnyside Hollow (Sharp turn/ Woodward's) X Ardery Hollow (Huston Tnsp by Church) X 1 ?pairTownship bridaes hbery Hollow Road ($1 6,600) Shady Dell Road ($19,550) I Sfream Relocation Proiect - Laurel Run Road - Depend, n 1-99 & Corridor 0 construction schedule i I (Cemetery to Mountain Road), Spring Valley Road, Laurel Run Road, and Bloskey Road.

* Hot Patch (1999-2003)

East and West Mountain Roads

* Resurface

East Mountain Road - 2003 West Mountain Road - 2004

* Redace Culverts (1999 & 2000)

West Mountain Road Ardery Hollow Road (1. Spackman’s Hill & 2. Cemetery by fields) Sawmill Road

* Stone Shoulders (1999-2004)

All paved roads ’: I. * Relocate Stream (depends on 1-99 & Corridor 0 construction schedule)

Laurel Run Road (Poorman’s)

* Stone Roadwavs (2000)

Orchard Road Spring Valley Road

-- * Widen and Straiahten Roadwavs (2000)

Ardery Hollow Road (northern end) Sawmill Road (Riser’s) Spring Valley Road

* ImDrove Visibilitv/lncrease Siaht Distance (1999)

Sunnyside Hollow Road (sharp turn at Woodward’s) Ardery Hollow Road (Huston Township by Church)

F. Apply for County Liquid Fuels funds to repair Township bridges and make improvements to Township roads.

G. Review all existing directional, speed limit, and weight restriction signage to determine its adequacy and consistency, and adjust as necessary. Post weight- limit and advance-warning signs for all Township-owned bridges as recommended

XI - 15 by bridge inspection engineers.

H. As funds become available, rehabilitate or replace both Township bridges as per the recommendations contained in the most current Township Bridge Inspection Reports.

I. Identify problem intersections and other traffic control or safety problems, and develop a prioritized list of recommendations to address the specified deficiencies. i

D. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN I General Growth Policies and Recommendations

PUBUC UTIWIES

GOAL: Adequate, accessible public utilities, and community facilities and services should remain available for all Township residents.

Recommendations:

A. Achieve maximum utilization of existing public utilities by encouraging development to locate in areas where such utilities are already located or could readily be extended. Contact the Port Matilda Sewer Authority and Port Matilda 1 Borough officials to initiate discussions for possible extension of Borough sewer and water facilities into Worth Township. Determine if there is sufficient interest on the part of the Borough to extend such services, and if so, ascertain if there is sufficient available capacity. Then identify the extent of potential service areas in the Township, and pursue grant monies to assist with costs associated with the provision of such services. Consider the possible benefits of forming a joint municipal authority to oversee the operation and maintenance of both utilities.

i. B. Consider the need to enact a septage management ordinance to ensure ! the proper maintenance of individual on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems and develop an educational program to identify appropriate maintenance actions for residents. Work with the municipal Sewage Enforcement Officer to coordinate these efforts.

C. Require developers to provide, at their expense, all utilities necessary to i serve their developments; including sewer, water and electric service. I

D. Evaluate the current level of police protection provided to the Township by the PA State Police. If appropriate, explore the possibility of providing municipal or regional, multi-municipal police service.

E. Endorse and support the current level of fire and ambulance protection provided by the volunteers of the Port Matilda Fire Department and Ambulance Service. Support necessary equipment upgrades and facility improvements, as

XI - 16 ! appropriate and within the constraints of the Township budget. Work with fire and ambulance officials to define appropriate response areas for 1-99, Corridor 0, and SEDA-COG rail lines, and identify additional equipment needs for response to potential incidents on those transportation facilities.

F. Annually request fire and ambulance providers to submit a 5-Year list of equipment needs, including a description of existing equipment (its age, its expected life, and plans for replacement) and new equipment needs. The list should also include total estimated costs and Worth Township's expected contribution.)

G. Increase citizen awareness of potential fire hazards and emergency medical techniques (Le. CPR) by supporting public education programs sponsored by local or regional fire or emergency personnel.

H. Coordinate municipal street naming efforts with the County's 9-1-1 Program to facilitate emergency dispatching and response.

I. Coordinate planning for flood emergencies, hazardous materials emergencies, and medical emergencies with neighboring municipalities, local and county emergency management personnel and applicable service providers. Establish procedures for response to and/or mitigation of potential disaster situations.

J. Establish and maintain realistic plans for collecting, storing and disposing of solid waste generated within the Township, including policies promoting recycling and the periodic collection of used appliances or "white goods." Consider establishing a recycling drop-off site within the Township and notify residents by newsletter of its location and hours of operation.

K. Investigate the feasibility of constructing a Municipal Building to centralize all municipal functions, including record keeping, permit -issuance, road maintenance, and decision-making. Contact Port Matilda officials and explore the possibilities of developing a joint facility.

EDUCATION

GOAL: Quality education and/or educational opportunities should remain available for all residents of the Township.

Recommendations:

A. Support the Bald Eagle Area School District in its efforts to provide quality education for district students and up-to-date school facilities. Emphasize the importance of academic achievement for students. B. Promote educational programs that recognize the rural character of the area, and encourage the School District to incorporate Township and regional

XI - 17 history into their curriculum as a means of preserving the area’s heritage for future generations.

C. Support the many college and extension training and re-training courses offered by the two- and four-year institutions in the area as a means of producing and maintaining a skilled labor force.

D. Promote adult education or elder training opportunities and emphasize the value of lifelong learning.

E. Encourage increased use of the Port Matilda Elementary School for community activities in accordance with identified School District policies.

RECRl3TION

i GOAL: Existing recreational facilities and public areas used by Township residents should be adequately maintained to preserve their integrity and assure their continued use. Recommendations:

A. Continue to support the use and maintenance of the various recreation areas located in Port Matilda. Support requests for facility upgrades or expansion as appropriate and within the constraints of the Township budget. Assist Borough officials in investigating the availability of and applying for grant monies for recreation activities. Consider joint sponsorship of applications. B. Determine the interest in and feasibility of providing for additional recreational facilities within the Borough and/or Township to increase the variety of leisure time activities available for residents, including the development of a trail system through the Township and surrounding areas for hiking, bicycling and/or horseback riding. If suff ieient interest is generated, appoint a committee to-study the issue and develop a plan. -. I C. Encourage developers to provide open space and recreational areas in I all new developments, where appropriate.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

Recommendations:

A. Maximize the effectiveness and extent of limited State, Federal and local resources by coordinating major projects with adjacent municipalities or regional 1 \ -1 XI - 18 1 I authorities when possible.

6. Investigate the benefits of regionalizing services such as police protection, sewage planning, sewer and water supply, cultural or recreational facilities and programs, transportation projects, etc. Meet with neighboring municipalities (including Port Matilda Borough and Taylor, Rush, Huston and Halfmoon Townships) to open lines of communication and discuss projects of mutual interest.

C. Continue to work closely with the Centre County Planning Office through the review and evaluation of proposed subdivision and land development plans for the Township. Streamline the process of reviewing such plans by developing a checklist.

D. Maintain an ongoing relationship with the Centre County Planning Office to stay abreast of pending programs and land-use or transportation issues that may affect the municipality.

E. Encourage participation in and budget dollars for attendance at state- or county-sponsored training seminars or workshops for municipal officials, Planning Commission members, and Zoning Hearing Board members. F. Consider the value of preparing and issuing a periodic Township newsletter. Seek donations from local businesses to help defray printing and/or mailing costs or consider other innovative distribution techniques, Le. enclosing with annual tax notices or similar mailings.

G. Periodically review the goals and objectives of this document to determine if updates or adjustments are necessary. Should unexpected changes occur, renew the planning process and prepare amendments.

E. EFFECT ON ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES

During formation of the Future Land-Use Recommendations, consideration was given to the development policies and land-use control regulations in effect in each of the adjoining municipalities, particularly as they relate to development immediately adjacent to Worth Township. Table 68 below illustrates the respective policies and controls that each municipality currently follows. (See also Map 32 for an illustration of the County Comprehensive Plan’s Land-Use Recommendations for Worth Township.)

As Table 68 shows, Port Matilda Borough and Halfmoon Township have adopted municipal Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances. Huston, Taylor and Rush Townships, on the other hand, have not initiated local comprehensive planning efforts or developed municipal zoning regulations. As a result, their land-use policies are generally governed by the Centre County Comprehensive Plan. None of the municipalities abutting Worth Township, with the exception of Halfmoon Township, has enacted local subdivision regulations, and as a result they are under jurisdiction of the Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. (Maps 33 and 34 provide an illustration of the land- use policies and zoning controls adopted in Port Matilda Borough and Halfmoon

XI - 19 TABLE 68

Land Use Policies and Regulations Adjacent Municipalities

I I 1999

Comprehensive Plan Subdivision or Land Zoning Municipality or Land Use Policy Development Ordinance Ordinance

Port Matilda Boro. Comp. Plan County Subdivision Boro. Zoning Borough

Huston Twp. County Comp. Plan County Subdivision none 1 ! Halfmoon Twp. Township Comp. Plan Township Subdivision TownshipZoning

Taylor Twp . County Comp. Plan County Subdivision none

Rush Township County Comp. Plan County Subdivision none 1

Source: Centre County Planning Commission, March 1999.

Township.)

After reviewing the land-use policies and regulations of each of the adjacent municipalities, it can be stated that there should be no significant conflicts between the Future Land-Use Recommendations being presented for Worth Township and the development policies and regulations in effect in the municipalities that surround the Township.

Most of the existing zoning districts which adjoin the Township acknowledge current land use patterns and were created to promote the extension of similar growth. Specifically, the Port Matilda Zoning Ordinance has provided for a continuation of village- type activities, including residential, commercial and industrial uses, and the Halfmoon Township Ordinance has established an agricultural zone along the entire length of the Bald Eagle Ridge which abuts Worth Township. (See Map 34.) Although there may be a few instances where a proposed Worth Township land use does not adjoin an identical zoning district, particularly in Port Matilda, the transition between permissible uses should not be altogether incompatible.

XI - 20 F. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PLAN COMPONENTS

The various components of this Plan are interrelated from beginning to end. The background chapters, Chapters 1-9, present and evaluate current conditions and land use activities in the Township; the goals, established in Chapter IO, set forth the municipality’s desires regarding the type, location and intensity of future development that should occur in the Township; the objective statements, following the goals, describe the intent or purpose of each goal; and the recommendations, presented in Chapter 11, illustrate specific ways in which the goals may be achieved. Chapter 12 will identify specific strategies and set forth a timetable for implementation of the goals and their recommendations. In other words, the goal statements represent what Township officials would like to see accomplished in the municipality in the future; the objectives explain why each goal is important; the recommendations how each goal might be accomplished; and the implementation strategies, when the recommendations should be addressed.

XI - 21 CHAPTER 12 = IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES CHAPTER 12

I IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Preparing and adopting a Comprehensive Plan are only the first steps in the municipal planning process. Utilization and implementation of the Plan’s recommendations are the other steps and are perhaps the most important aspects of the process. Even though a plan can identify existing problems and opportunities to correct them, the plan will only be effective if its recommendations are followed. This Plan’s recommendationsare intended to help guide future growth and related land-use decisions in Worth Township. Its effectiveness will therefore by directly related to how often it is utilized by public officials and private individuals and organizations. In this case, the Township Planning Commission and Township Supervisors must take primary responsibility for implementing the Plan’s goals and realizing its objectives. They must continue to coordinate with neighboring municipalities, County Planning personnel and other governmental agencies, including the PA Department of Community and Economic Development, the PA Department of Environmental Protection, and the PA Department of Transportation, while taking action within the Township to apply the Plan’s recommendations.

I This Chapter lists short- and long-term actions designed to promote or achieve the goals and objectives identified in Chapter 10 and identifies potential funding sources or mechanisms to finance such actions.

A. LAND-USE CONTROL REGULATION RECOMMENDATIONS

As stated in Chapter 1, a Comprehensive Plan does not carry the weight of law; it is a series of recommendations or policies aimed at guiding decisions regarding the physical development of a municipality for the foreseeable -future. Therefore, land-use- regulations or legal standards must be developed to achieve the goals, objectives and recommendations set forth in a plan. Land-use control regulations are the best tools available to help guide the future growth and development of a municipality and implement the recommendations presented in the community’s Comprehensive Plan. Such controls include both subdivision and zoning regulations. Simply defined, subdivision regulations direct or control how a tract of land is divided or arranged into lots, while zoning regulations establish the specific type of use or development that may occur on a lot or may be situated in a given zoning district.

At present in Worth Township the only subdivision regulations in effect are those in the Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Centre County Planning Office oversees all subdivision and land development occurring in the Township and handles the administrative duties associated with that activity. The County has provided this service to the residents and officials of Worth Township as well as other municipalities in the county since 1966, when the first set of County‘Subdivision regulations were enacted. The Township can, however, prepare, enact and administer its own local subdivision regulations, if desired. Such local standards would then

XI1 - 1 supersede the County’s requirements.

To date there has been little if any interest expressed in establishing local control over subdivisions or land developments. Municipal *officials have however recently acknowledged a desire to play a more active role in the review of such plans through reorganization of the Township Planning Commission. Township planners now thoroughly review and evaluate all proposals for subdivision and land development within the municipality, and their comments, suggestions and recommendations are considered as the County makes a decision to approve or disapprove plan submissions. As long as this process for incorporating the Township’s comments and addressing its concerns ! regarding local development is working satisfactorily, there would appear to be no reason for the municipality to enact local subdivision regulations. The Township Planning ? Commission should remain active in the review process in order to determine the consistency of such submissions with the goals and objectives of this Plan.

There are presently no zoning regulations in effect in Worth Township; none have been enacted locally nor have there been any such provisions adopted at the county level. Therefore, even though the County Subdivision and Land Development regulations control how a development is laid out, they cannot control the location or specific type of development that occurs in the Township. Only zoning regulations can provide this level of influence. Zoning regulations can focus on the capacity of the land, its soils, slope and the location of existing and projected infrastructure (including sewer and water supply lines, utilities, and highways) to determine the most suitable location for different types of land uses. In this case, since a great many of the Township’s goals can be achieved by directing future land uses to specific areas of the municipality, the development of local zoning regulations seems to be a logical step.

Several cautions should be observed during development and administration of municipal zoning regulations. First, it is important that the zoning ordinance preserve the rights of existing land owners, while at the same time furthering overall community goals and accommodating balanced growth. Second, the administration and enforcement of ! the ordinance must be consistent -and equitable. Third, the zoning ordinance,-like-the - - comprehensive plan, should be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, revised to reflect changing conditions or new development techniques. Refinements to the ordinance and map may also need to be made as the ordinance is actively used by the Township and its citizens.

B. PRIORITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Since Worth Township does not have the capacity to immediately undertake all the recommendations included in Chapter 11 of this Plan, the concepts and strategies presented in that Chapter have been divided into two categories -- short- and long-term implementation. Each of the recommendations in the short-term category should be undertaken within two years after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Those identified as long-term strategies should be considered for implementation within five years.

The proposed actions are further separated into categories that identify potential budgetary impacts for the Township. Specific responsibilities for addressing each

XI1 - 2 1 \ recommendation are assigned to the applicable municipal agency, group, personnel or individual. Ad hoc groups or committees of interested citizens could also be organized or appointed to help implement many of the proposed actions.

(No headings or category titles are used in this presentation of the strategies; the sole purpose of this section is to provide a schedule for possible implementation. Strategies are not presented in order of importance, and personnel and agency assignments are intended as suggestions.)

SHORT-TERM IMPEME~ATIONSTRATEGIES

With Limited Budaet ImDact

1. Issue a press release to the Centre Daily Times and other local newspapers and/or prepare an article for publication in an upcoming edition of the Township newsletter informing Township residents of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Township Planning Commission

2. Continue to thoroughly review all Township subdivision and land development proposals. Township Planning Commission

3. Continue to work with County Planning Office personnel to ensure that all Township subdivisions and land developments are planned and designed in accordance with the provisions of the Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Recommend revisions or adjustments to the regulations as appropriate. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors. Assure that at a minimum such standards:

a. encourage undergroundinstallation of utilities in new developments, where feasible, or require blending of utilities with the natural environment of the .development site.

b. promote the use of cluster or other innovative design techniques for new developments as a means of preserving open space and minimizing the amount of land disturbed by new construction.

c. require developers to provide documentation, along with their subdivision plans, showing that sufficient assessment has been made of the possible environmental constraints of the development site, i.e. wetlands, hydric soil areas, floodplains, etc.

d. require developers to undertake hydrogeologic studies where known water-quantity problems exist to avoid creating adverse impacts on the water supplies of adjoining property owners.

e. require developers to incorporate stormwater management controls into the design of all new subdivisions or land developments. Require documentation to show that such proposed controls will be adequate and will

XI1 - 3 not cause adverse impacts on adjoining or down-stream properties.

f. require developers, through the use of improvement agreements/ performance guarantees, to provide for all necessary improvements for their developments, including sewer service, water supply, electric service, and stormwater management controls, as well as streets, curbs, and sidewalks where appropriate.

g. require developers to plant vegetation buffers or retain existing vegetation along streams and watercourses where new development is planned. !

h. require developers to provide all necessary utilities for their developments, including sewer, water, and electric service, either through the extension of existing facilities or the establishment of new supplies.

1 i. require developers to design and construct new streets in accordance with applicable Township standards, and require them to address the impact of their proposals on the existing street system adjacent to and near the development.

j. require developers to separate pedestrian and vehicle circulation routes, especially near schools, churches, and other places of public assembly to avoid creating safety problems.

k. require the design of all new subdivisions and developments to provide: adequate access for emergency vehicles; adequate access for trucks and delivery vehicles; and sufficient right-of-way for utilities.

I. require developers to provide open space and recreational areas in all J new developments, where appropriate.

4. Streamline the process of reviewing subdivision and land development plans by developing a checklist. Township Planning Commission

5. Encourage thorough review by PADOT of all proposed new access points along state-owned collector or arterial highways (especially U.S. Route 220, U.S. Route 322, and S.R. 3023, Reese Hollow Road, and S.R. 3017, Beckwith Road) to avoid creating potentially hnsafe intersections and hazardous situations. Thoroughly review subdivision and land developments to ensure coordination of these proposals with State and Township highway plans and projects. Township 1 _i

Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors i

6. Maintain an effective, current sewage facilities planning and permitting program for the Township. Township Board of Supervisors & Township Sewage Enforcement Officer

7. Assure that any development in floodplain areas complies with National Flood Insurance Program regulations and provisions of the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act. Maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. XI1 - 4 .J Township Planning Commission

8. Support and promote educational programs that foster a greater under- standing of the local environment and the need for protection of its sensitive areas. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

9. Encourage "Clean and Green" tax benefit enrollments for agricultural properties as a means of discouraging subdivision or other types of land development from occurring in those areas. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

10. Support current "Agricultural Security Area" designations for agricultural properties and promote additional landowner participation in the program. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

11. Support landowner participation in the County's "Purchase of Development Rights" program to protect agricultural properties from development pressures. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

12. Support and encourage Century Farm enrollments. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

13. Encourage agricultural property owners to participate in various farm- related or land conservation organizations to maintain awareness and knowledge of available preservation assistance programs. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

14. Encourage sound forest management practices as part of all commercial timber harvesting operations. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

15. Promote an economy compatible with the character of the community and the quality of its environment. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

16. Monitor state and county transportation policies as they relate to proposed or potential improvement projects in and around the Township as a means of coordinating state and local planning efforts. Prepare a bi-annual list of candidate projects for submission to Centre County Planning Commission and inclusion on PADOT's 12-Year Program. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

17. Continue to give a high priority to safety improvements in the US 220 North Corridor. Coordinate efforts with neighboring municipalities and with citizen groups. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

18. Continue active participation in Corridor 0 Advisory Committee meetings to assure the Township's position on alignment/realignment of the roadway is heard. Continue to support alignment alternates that minimize encroachment into

XI1 - 5 the Township and limit the roadway’s impact on existing housing, natural areas, high-quality watersheds and waterways, and other environmentally sensitive areas. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

19. Apply for County Liquid Fuels funds to repair Township bridges and make improvements to Township roads. Township Board of Supervisors

20. Maintain an ongoing relationship with the Centre County Planning Office to stay abreast of pending programs and land-use or transportation issues that may affect the municipality. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors I

21. Consider establishing specific design and construction standards for new I Township roadways to supersede the standards set forth in the Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, & Consultant, as needed.

22. Coordinate municipal street naming efforts with the County’s 9-1-1 Program to facilitate emergency dispatching and response. Township Board of Supervisors

23. Work with SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad to minimize safety hazards along the rail line owned by the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority. Ask SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad to co-sponsor ‘i training for emergency response personnel in communities located along the rail line. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

24. Support the Bald Eagle Area School District in its efforts to provide quality education for district students and up-to-date school facilities. Emphasize the 1 importance of academic achievement for students. Township Planning

Commission & Board of Supervisors 1 -. -. 25. Promote educational programs that recognize the rural character of the area, and encourage the School District to incorporate Township and regional history into the curriculum as a means of preserving the area’s heritage for future generations. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

26. Support the many college and extension training and re-training courses offered by the two- and four-year institutions in the area as a means of promoting and maintaining a skilled labor force. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

27. Promote adult education or elder training opportunities and emphasize the value of lifelong learning. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

28. Encourage use of the Port Matilda Elementary School for community activities in accordance with identified School District policies. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

XI1 - 6 SHORT-TERM IMPEMEMATION STRATEGIES

With Budaet Impact

1. Develop local zoning regulations that will consider the character of the various composite areas of the Township and its heritage; protect existing neighborhoods while accommodating new development; and avoid pollution of the area’s natural resources. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Township Solicitor, and Consultant. At a minimum, assure that such provisions:

a. support ideas, concepts and proposals that respect community institutions and the integrity and character of existing neighborhoods.

b. avoid mixing incompatible land uses, while maintaining neighborhood conveniences and employment opportunities for Township residents.

c. discourage non-farm encroachment in agricultural areas of the Township and minimize the impact of public projects (Le. highways, utility transmission lines, municipal sewer or water projects, etc.) on these and other environmentally sensitive areas.

d. require the use of aesthetically pleasing landscaping techniques to enhance the visual quality of the environment, particularly where residential and non-residential developments meet. Encourage the use of native plants in landscaping. (See Bavscapes publications.)

. ... e. require the use of buffer areas or screen plantings to ensure the compatibility and protection of adjoining land uses.

f. require the construction of vegetative barriers or other landscaping to minimize the visual, audible and environmental impacts-of mining,quarrying, or related storage activities.

g. consider the capacity of the area’s natural resources, including its soils, slope, and water supply to accommodate new development.

h. protect the Township’s natural areas and its high-quality streams and watersheds, including Oliver Run, Laurel Run, Reese Hollow, and Sunnyside Hollow.

i. discourage the use or disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas, including floodplains, wetlands, hydric soil areas, ground water recharge areas, and natural heritage inventory sites.

j. require builders to prepare and submit appropriate Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control plans, reviewed by the Centre County Conservation District, with all Building Permit applications.

XI1 - 7 k. prevent signs and roadside development from encroaching upon the Township's scenic corridors.

I. discourage clear-cutting or deforestation of steep slopes. Encourage preservation of wooded areas to avoid soil erosion and stormwater management problems.

m. encourage the development of businesses serving the needs of the local marketplace.

n. support the location of "village scale" industrial and commercial development clustered around Port Matilda.

0. support varied employment opportunities for Township residents while preserving a healthful and pleasant environment and helping to sustain the local tax base.

p. recognize agricultural production and timber harvesting operations as important economic activities in the Township and support efforts to preserve such operations for the future.

q. permit the establishment of related businesses in association with ongoing farming operations.

r. address lot coverage, setback and bufferingrequirements, parking and/or loading, lighting, and sign controls to protect adjoining uses and foster the continuity of existing neighborhoods.

s. provide for all basic forms of housing, including single and two family dwellings, a reasonable range of multi-family dwellings in various arrangements, and mobile homes and mobile home parks, in order to offer a choice of housing-styles for- Township residents, -

t. establish appropriate future residential densities. ! 2. Administer and enforce local zoning and land-use control regulations in an equitable, consistent manner throughout the Township. Township Zoning Officer, Township Zoning Hearing Board, & County Planning Office

3. Consider coordinating and sponsoring an annual "Community Clean-up Day" in conjunction with the County's Solid Waste Authority to help maintain the Township's overall appearance, and enhance the community's sense of pride. Township Board of Supervisors t

4. Require municipal Driveway Permits for the construction of all new driveways or accesses onto Township roads. Develop Driveway Design Guidelines and incorporate them into local land use control regulations to assure the safety of such installations. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, & Consultant, as needed

XI1 - 8 I 5. Formalize an ongoing improvement/maintenance program for all Township-owned roads and bridges, identifying by year those projects intended for completion. Develop a capital improvements program to help plan for future road maintenance projects, budget for equipment purchases, and identify potential funding sources. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

6. Coordinate municipal road improvement projects with other utility 1: installations where possible as a means of minimizing costs. Township Board of Supervisors and utility companies

7. Continue to support the use and maintenance of the various recreation areas located in Port Matilda. Support requests for facility upgrades or expansion as appropriate and within the constraints of the Township budget. Assist Borough officials in investigating the availability of and applying for grant monies for recreation activities. Consider joint sponsorship of applications. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

8. Encourage participation in and budget dollars for attendance at state- or county-sponsored training seminars or workshops for municipal officials, Planning Commission members, and Zoning Hearing Board members. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Zoning Hearing Board & Zoning Off icet

9. Continue to prepare and issue periodic Township newsletters. Seek donations from local businesses to help defray printing and/or mailing costs or consider other innovative distribution techniques, i.e. enclosing with annual tax notices or similar mailings. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors __

LONG-TERM IMPf€M€NATION STRATEGIES

W-ith Limited Budaet Impact

1. Participate in programs aimed at sustaining aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sound development. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

2. Support the preparation of stormwater management plans for each of the Township’s watersheds by the Centre County Planning Commission as funding becomes available. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

3. Acknowledge the magnitude of industrial activity currently existing througnout the Centre Region, and support the efforts of the Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership and the Altoona Blair County Development Corporation to create additional job opportunities in those areas. Focus Township industrial efforts on meeting local employment goals, rather than competing for large-scale regional industrial operations. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

xi1 - 9 4. Work with county and regional economic development agencies to help achieve the Township’s identifiedcommercial/industrial goals. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

5. Promote improvements to telecommunications infrastructurethat will allow local home-based businesses to compete effectively for work. Township Planning Commission

6. Encourage local participation in job training and retraining programs to maintain a skilled labor force. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

7. Work with local and regional historic organizations and knowledgeable local historians to develop a history of the Township and consult it when new projects or developments are proposed. Township Planning Commission

8. Consider organizing an Historic Committee made up of interested Township residents to identify historically significant structures and sites and determine the benefit of encouraging their registration on state and/or national Historic Registers as a means of preserving the area’s heritage for future generations. Township Board of Supervisors & Historic Committee , 9. Arrange for a local historian to provide a review of historical significance and impact for developments proposed in areas of the Township which have been identified as potentially historic. Township Planning Commission

10. Determine the need for and investigate the availability of housing assistance funds or programs to help with the rehabilitation of homes in the Township, especially those owned by residents with low or moderate incomes, as a means of protecting the existing housing stock and maintaining exterior structure appearances. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

11. Support Centre County housing programs and forums aimed at educating community leaders and the public regarding housing issues, concerns and needs. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

12. Actively participate in county and regional transportation forums, including 1 transportation-related committees or citizen advisory boards reviewing proposed f plans for realignment and reconstruction of U.S. Route 322 (Corridor 0) and U.S. Route 220, to ensure the Township a continued voice in these projects. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

13. Increase citizen awareness of potential fire hazards and emergency medicaltechniques (Le. CPR) by supporting public education programs sponsored by local or regional fire or emergency personnel. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors ? 1 . ..ii 14. Coordinate planning for flood emergencies, hazardous materials emergencies, and medical emergencies with neighboring municipalities, local and 1 /

XI1 - 10 I county emergency management personnel and applicable service providers. Establish procedures for response to and/or mitigation of potential disaster situations. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

15. Maximize the effectiveness and extent of limited State, Federal and local resources by coordinating major projects with adjacent municipalities or regional ! authorities when possible. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

LONG-TERM IMPEMENTATION STRATEGIES

With Budaet ImDact

1. Consider developing a Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance, based on a Joint Municipal Comprehensive Plan, with Port Matilda Borough and/or other surrounding municipalities. Determine if there is sufficient interest on the part of Borough and/or Township officials to undertake such a planning venture. If so, establish a realistic schedule and pursue grant monies to help defray project costs. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

2. Explore the benefits of developing a municipal well-head protection program to safeguard the quality and availability of the Township's groundwater. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors 3. Identify existing drainage or runoff problems and develop a strategy and schedule to correct them. Township Planning Commission &. Board of Supervisors

4. Encourage car-pooling and ride-sharing programs and the use of public transportation (including the commuter bus service to be provided by CATA beginning in August 1999) to minimize reliance on the automobile for commuting. Consider establishing a "Park and Ride" lot in or near the Township through cooperation with neighboring municipalities, CATA, Centre County, and the Centre Region Municipal Planning Organization (MPO). Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

7. investigate the feasibility of creating a trail system through the Township and surrounding areas for hiking, bicycling and/or horseback riding, to connect existing and proposed recreational locations and employment sites. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

8. Continue the ongoing maintenance of Township roads and bridges. Undertake specific road improvement projects in accordance with a designated 5- Year schedule and as monies become available. Township Board of Supervisors

9. Review all existing directional, speed limit, and weight restriction signage to determine its adequacy and consistency, and adjust as necessary. Post weight- limit and advance-warning signs for all Township-owned bridges as recommended

XI1 - 11 by bridge inspection engineers. Township Board of Supervisors

10. Rehabilitate or replace both Townsnip bridges as per the recommendations contained in the most current Township Bridge Inspection Reports as funds become available. Township Board of Supervisors

11. Identify problem intersections and other traffic control or safety problems and develop a prioritized list of recommendations to address the specified deficiencies. Use the Township newsletter to solicit comments from Township residents on problem intersections. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

12. Achieve maximum utilization of existing public utilities by encouraging development to locate in areas where such utilities are already located or could readily be extended. Contact the Port Matilda Sewer Authority and Port Matilda Borough officials to initiate discussions for possible extension of Borough sewer and water facilities into Worth Township. Determine if there is sufficient interest on the part of the Borough to extend such services, and if so, ascertain if there is sufficient available capacity. Then identify the extent of potential service areas in the Township, and pursue grant monies to assist with costs associated with the provision of such services. Consider the possible benefits of forming a joint municipal authority to oversee the operation and maintenance of both utilities. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Port Matilda Sewer Authority, & Port Matilda Borough officials

13. Consider the need to enact a septage management ordinance to ensure I the proper maintenance of individual on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems or develop an educational program to identify appropriate maintenance actions for residents. Work with the municipal Sewage Enforcement Officer to coordinate these efforts. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors & Sewage Enforcement Officer I -- , 14. Evaluate the current level of police protection provided to the Township by the PA State Police. If appropriate, explore the possibility of providing municipal or regional, multi-municipal police service. Township Board of Supervisors

15. Endorse and support the current level of fire and ambulance protection provided by the volunteers of the Port Matilda Fire Department and Ambulance Service. Support necessary equipment upgrades and facility improvements, as appropriate and within the constraints of the Township budget. Work with fire and

ambulance officials to define appropriate response areas for 1-99, Corridor 0, and i SEDA-COG rail lines, and identify additional equipment needs for response to potential incidents on those transportation facilities. Township Board of Supervisors, & Port Matilda Fire and Ambulance Service personnel

16. Annually request fire and ambulance providers to submit a 5-Year list of

equipment needs, including a description of existing equipment (its age, its life ... 3 expectancy, and plans for replacement) and new equipment needs. The list should also include total estimated costs and Worth Township’s expected contribution. XI1 - 12 II Ii i

Township Board of Supervisors, & Port Matilda Fire and Ambulance Service personnel

17. Establish and maintain realistic plans for collecting, storing and disposing of solid waste generated within the Township, including policies promoting recycling and the periodic collection of used appliances or "white goods." Consider establishing a recycling drop-off site within the Township and notify residents by newsletter of its location and hours of operation. Township Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

18. Investigate the feasibility of constructing a Municipal Building to centralize all municipal functions, including record keeping, permit issuance, road maintenance, and decision-making. Contact Port Matilda officials and explore the possibilities of developing a joint facility. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors & Port Matilda officials

19. Determine the interest in and feasibility of providing for additional recreational facilities within Port Matilda Borough and/or Worth Township to increase the variety of leisure-time activities available for residents, including the development of a trail system through the Township and surrounding areas for hiking, bicycling and/or horseback riding. If sufficient interest is generated, appoint a committee to study the issue and develop a plan. Township Planning Comm- ission, Board of Supervisors, Port Matilda officials, & Recreation Committee 20. Investigate the benefits of regionalizing services such as police protection, sewage planning, sewer and water supply, cultural or recreational facilities and programs, transportation projects, etc. Meet with neighboring municipalities (including Port Matilda Borough and Taylor, Rush, Huston and Halfmoon Townships) to open lines of communication and discuss projects of mutual interest. Township Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Port Matilda Borough planners and officials, & planners and officials from surrounding Townships

21. Periodically review the goals and objectives of this document to determine if updates or adjustments are necessary. Should unexpected changes occur, renew the planning process and prepare amendments. Township. Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors

I ! i C. PROJECT FUNDING OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS j There are numerous ways or methods to finance municipal capital improvements projects. Several are listed below with a brief definition and an explanation of their

! potential application. i 1. Current Revenue i ! This "pay-as-you-go"approach finances projects from current revenues, i.e. general taxation (school or property taxes), fees, service charges, special funds i or special assessments. No borrowing is involved. I XI1 - 13 2. Reserve Funds

This type of financing is reserved in advance and funds are accumulated for capital construction. Funds come from surplus or are earmarked from current revenues. When sufficient funding is accumulated, project construction is begun or equipment purchase is made.

3. General Obliaation Bonds

General obligation bonds are bonds sold to finance permanent improvements such as schools, hospitals and similar facilities. Such financing can often require voter approval since principal and interest on the bonds are paid out of municipal revenues.

4. Revenue Bonds

Revenue bonds are bonds sold to produce revenue for specific projects. These bonds are financed by service fees or charges associated with the capital project. Water and sewer systems are frequently financed with this type of bond. The interest rate on revenue bonds is typically higher than the interest rate for general obligation bonds.

5. Lease-Purchase

With this type of arrangement, a private company, authority or individual builds the public works project to the specifications of the local government and .then leases the facility to the governmental entity. At the end of the lease, the original cost of the project plus interest has been paid and the local government receives ownership.

6. Authorities and SDecial Districts

Authorities or special districts are generally established by a municipality where a facility or project will serve a specific area, whether a segment of a single community or multiple municipalities. The project may be financed by revenue bonds, user charges, or a special applied in the district.

7. Special Assessments 4

This method of financing provides a more equitable method of funding public works projects that benefit particular properties. In this case, property owners benefiting from a project pay a special assessment to finance the project or facility.

8. State and Federal Grants and/or Loans

Various state and Federal grants and/or loans are sometimes available to finance capital projects and programs, including Community Development Block Grants administered by Centre County and the PA Department of Community and Economic Development, PennVEST low-interest loans managed by the PA

XI1 - 14 Department of Environmental Protection, or Farmer’s Home Administration loan funds. Grants are generally more competitive than loans, but municipalities usually need to meet specific criteria in order to be eligible for any government-sponsored monies. In most cases, a local share is required to match the grant or loan, although the percentage varies between programs.

9. Tax Increment Financing

This type of funding is generally associated with large-scale redevelopment in urban and suburban areas. The increased tax base created by the redevelopment project is used to retire bonds which were sold to finance the project. increased tax revenues in the project area are distributed normally after the project costs are retired.

XI1 - 15 RESOiLUTlONS i !

! I RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT

I WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Worth Township, Centre County, PA, possesses the legal authority under Article Ill of the PA Municipalities Planning Code, Act 247 of 1968, as reenacted and amended by Act 170 of 1988, to adopt a municipal Comprehensive Plan; and

I WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Worth Township, Centre County, PA, on

I, August 7, 1997, authorized the expenditure of municipal funds and selected a consultant to assist the Township Planning Commission in the development of such a Plan; and

WHEREAS, in April 1999 the Township Planning Commission and municipal consultant, completed the development of a comprehensive Plan for Worth Township - 7999 (Second Draft); and

WHEREAS, the Worth Township Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on May 26, 1999 to receive public comment on the proposed Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of Worth Township, Centre County, PA, hereby endorses the Second Draft of the Comprehensive Plan for Worth Township - 7999, in its entirety, and recommends that the Plan be adopted by the Township Board of Supervisors.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 30th day of June , 1999.

WORTH TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

C&.&aryl Worth ownship nning Commission

Xlll - 1 1! RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Worth Township, Centre County, PA, Ii possesses the legal authority under Article Ill of the PA Municipalities Planning Code, Act 247 of 1968, as reenacted and amended by Act 170 of 1988, to adopt a municipal ! Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Worth Township, Centre County, PA, on August 7, 1997, authorized the expenditure of municipal funds and selected a consultant ! to assist the Township Planning Commission in the development of such a Plan; and i WHEREAS, in April 1999 the Township Planning Commission and municipal consultant, completed the development of a Comprehensive Plan for Worth T0wnshi.p - 7999 (Second Draft); and i J WHEREAS, the Worth Township Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on May 26, 1999 to receive public comment on the proposed Plan, and the Township Supervisors held a Public Hearing on August 5. 1999 to consider adoption of the proposed Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Worth Township, Centre County, PA does hereby adopt the Second Draft of the Comprehensive Plan for Worth Township - 1999, in its entirety. I I IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 5* day of bus& , 1999.

WORTH TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS

.. ... I_ , ATTEST: -!.

- SEAL .. .

.,- I . . . ,..., : . . .. . ’ , . .ib& Xlll - 2 ,. , . . ,r’ APPENDICES !

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

APPENDIX 6. INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS

APPENDIX C. TOWNSHIP AUDIT REPORT SUMMARIES

APPENDIX D. PLAN PRESENTATION AND ADOPTION PROCESS !

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY Survey Questionnaire Data Summary I Survey Report & Summary

I I !

I ! 1

...I A- 1 WORTH TOWNSHIP

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendix A Wd74 sv 123 Reese Hollow Road PORT MATILDA, PENNSYLVANIA 16870

WORTH TOWNSHIP CITIZEN SURVEY

Through planning, it is possible to encourage or discourage various types of land use. A comprehensive plan can encourage coordinated and harmonious development in Worth Township.

Currently, the Worth Township Supervisors are working with the Centre County Commissioners and the Centre County Planning Office to begin to establish a comprehensive plan for Worth Township.

The information you supply in this Questionnaire will be compiled along with other information, and used by a fbture planning commission in the development of the Township’s Comprehensive Plan. This information will also be used by the Township Supervisors to guide their decisions on new and existing programs and services. As such, this Questionnaire presents an opportunity for you to help determine your Townshp’s fbture. Your input is very important to us. Without that, your needs and the fbture needs of your children may not be addressed.

To guarantee that your opinions are recorded, please return the Questionnaire within TWO WEEKS, no later than March 20. We have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your use. The envelope is for the return of the questionnaire only. Your taxes should be remitted separately. Your assistance in providing the return postage will keep the cost of the survey as efficient as possible.

There is no need to sign the Questionnaire, but where problems exist, please be specific about their type and location.

Results of this survey will be available from the Township Secretary, Mrs. Jadine Reese. A public meeting is being scheduled for April or May to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

As a resident of Worth Township, would you be interested in serving in local government? Yes No If Yes: Name Address Interests (You may return this portion of the Questionnaire separately, if you prefer.) GENERAL PROBLEMS I Listed below are topics that are usually addressed by township government. Please rank them according to their importance in Worth Township. (Place 1 by the most important, 2 by the next ... 3.. .. 4... .5.. . etc. thru 14, the least important.) Billboard and sign control Building and Housing Codes Fire Protection Floodplain Management Future Growth -Recreation Police Protection Road Maintenance Refise Collection and Disposal -Traffic Safety -Sewage Disposal Preservation of Farmland Water SupplyPollution Other

Comments:

In which area of the Township do you reside: Ardery Hollow Flat Rock Laurel Run Mountain Road Port Mountain Reese Hollow Sunnyside Hollow 322 west of Port Matilda 220 north of Port Matilda 220 south of Port Matilda

As a resident, where is your place of work located? (Please choose as many as apply from each column) At home -Bellefonte area Outside the home -Philipsburg area I’m a student -State College area I’m retired -Elsewhere in Centre County -I’m looking for work Outside Centre County GROWTH What amount of growth do you foresee during the next ten years? (Indicate by placing I before the most likely estimate, 2 before the next, and 3 by the Ieast.) No Growth Moderate Growth Substantial Growth

Where do you think new growth should occur? Place I by the most desirable, 2 by next, 3 and 4 by the least.) Around Port Matilda Borough On Farm Land In Wooded Areas (mountains, woodlots) Along Routes 220 or 322

What type of residential growth should be encouraged? (Place 1 by the most desirable, 2 by the next, .... 3 .... 4 .... and 5 by the least.) Mobile Homes Mobile Home Parks Multi-Family (apartments) SeasonaVRecreational Single Family County, Borough and Township governments can influence growth and development through their comprehensive plan, land use controls and other policies. Below is a list of development directions that local government can encourage in the Township. Please indicate whether you feel government should encourage or should discourage the following development activities. Encourage Undecided Discourage Direct new growth to areas in and adjacent to existing boroughs and villages - Preserve farmland - Preserve natural and scenic areas - Direct new industry to industrial parks - Minimize new growth and development - Control the location of new residential developments to protect farms and open countryside -

Listed below are various types of development activities which could occur. Please circle the number which represents your preference for the amount of each type of development. High Moderate Low None I' Apartment developments ...... 1 2 3 4 Commercial developments ...... 1 -3 3 4 Development with both residences & workplaces ...... 1 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 Mobile homes ...... 1 2 3 4 Mobile home parks ...... 1 2 3 4 Moderately pnc ...... 1 2 3 4 Office buildings ...... I 2 3 4 Recreational dev ...... 1 2 3 4 Research & development industries ...... 1 2 3 4 Seasonal homeshunting cabins ...... 1 2 3 4 Senior citizen housing...... 1 2 3 4 Single family homes ...... 1 2 3 4 Townhouses...... 1 2 3 4

Please check the appropriate answer: Strongly No Strong Strongly Agree Agree Feelings Disagree Disagree Where I live should have an overall plan which identifies where different types of development should occur. -

Where I live should have minimum standards that apply when land is subdivided or developed. -

Where I live should have regulations that describe where different types of development can occur. 1 During the next five years, do you think Worth Township will become a more or less desirable place to live? More desirable Less desirable No change

Comments:

ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION The Township Supervisors and PennDOT are responsible for the maintenance of roads in the Township. How do you rate their performance? ’ Adequate Inadequate Supervisors Road maintenance - - Snow Removal PennDOT Road maintenance Snow Removal -

Please indicate where there are problems (be as specific as possible):

Are there traffic safety improvements needed? Yes No Where Brush Trimming or Removal Dangerous Intersections School Bus Stopsflurnarounds Speed Limit Areas Stor! signs. Traffic Lights Traffic Noise

Comments:

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL SERVICES? Would you be willing to pay additional taxes to receive additional services from the Township? Yes No If yes, which services would you include? OTHER COMMENTS Please feel free to express any other comments you have concerning the fbture of the Township. WORTH TOWNSHIP

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

DATA SUMMARY

Appendix A .. .- ...... ---. .. .. , ...... i--i.___..-.-.-___..-.. I Issues Ranked as Most Important by Worth Township Residents I 75 70 Rated as 1 Concern 65 No. F-3 Rated Among Top Three Concerns 60 I I 55

v) c C 50 a, U c 45 0

a,8 40 cc c 0 35 nti 30 z5 25 20

5 0 Rod Mainicnvvc Err Rolrction Tdfic Salcty Fulurc Gmwh Farm Rcvrvslion Wilcr Supply Police Pmlccliun Scwgc Dirpoul Building Cidcr RdwCollcclion Billboard Canuol Rccmalion Rmlplain Mgmnt Issues of Concern in Worth Township

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 WORTH TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS: Background Information

Where In Worth Township Do the Residents Live?

Respondents Percent of Total I Mountain Road 31 25 70 Reese Hollow 22 18% 220 N. of Port Matilda 12 10% Sunnyside Hollow 12 10% Flat Rock 10 8% 322 W. of Port Matilda 9 7% Laurel Run 9 7% Ardery Hollow 8 6% 220 S. of Port Matilda 7 6% Port Mountain 4 3% 124 100%

Employment Status Employed 74% I Retired 25 % Unemployed 1%

Place of Work I

State College 60.5% At Home 9.9% Elsewhere in County 9.9% Outside of County 9.9% No Fixed Location 7.4% No Location Given 2.4%

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 I ’ Worth Township Resident’s High Priority Concerns Results based on the Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

IRoad Maintenance1 I Fire Protection I

30 -

v) a, cn C g20- v) a, U

LL Rating (1 - 14) Rating (1 - 14)

I Future Growth I 401 I 40 .I I

cn 30/ % .. t g 20 v) a U 10

U 0 Rating (1 - 14) I Rating (1 - 14) I

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

I . .f Worth Township Resident's Moderate Priority Concerns Results based on the Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

I Police Protection I iwater supptyl 2c

15 15 fn v) a, a, cn cn

Q 1c 1c fn a, B a aa, 5 5

0 0 Rating (1 - 14) Rating (1 - 14) I

[Farmland Presetva

2o i

Rating (1 - 14)

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 1 1 Worth Township Resident's Low Priority Concerns Results based on the Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

-Disposal] -Disposal] [Refuse Collection 201201 15 1 15 u) u) a Q) u) v) c c g 10 g 10 v) v) Q) Q) U a 5 5

0 0 Rating (1 - 14) Rating (1 - 14) I LI Worth Township Resident's Very Low Priority Concerns Results based on the Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

IBuilding Codes] 301

U2 Q In12oi v) _. n $10 2 10

0 0 Rating (1 - 14) I Rating (1 - 14)

1 Floodplain Management1 [Billboard & Sign Control 30430 g 20 v) L c 0 0 Q Q v) v) 2 10 $ 10

0 0 Rating (1 - 14) Rating (1 - 14)

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 Respondents were asked to rank'three development scenarios as to which was must likely, next most likely, and least likely. In general, Worth Township residents feel that moderate growth is the most probable future pattern of development. A significant minority think that substantial growth is a good possibility, while very few indicate that no growth is a likely scenario; in fact, the great percentage agree that no growth is least likely of all. More specifically:

0 MOST LIKELY - a majority (58%) said moderate growth, of the rest 31 9% put substantial growth as musf likely and only 11% indicated no growth

0 NEXT MOST LIKELY- Moderate growth is also the leading answer (43%) because it is seen as the second choice both by those who foresee rapid future growth and by those who predict no growth at all. On the other hand, substantial growth is seen as next must likely by 41 %, probably the second choice of those anticipating moderate growth.

0 LEAST LIKELY - No one indicated moderate growth here, though one quarter do feel that substantial growth is unlikely. Three quarters chose no growth as least likely.

This township-wide picture generally captures the range of expectations in Worth Township, yet some subtle variations are associated with different regions in the township.

Worth Township Survey: 1997 ......

EXPECTATION OF SUBSTANTIAL GROWTI-I

Mountain Road traverses the entire breadth of Worth Township, WORTH TOWNSHIP running along the base of the Allegheny Front. According to the Mountain Road Respondents (30) - ______~ __ 100 - -___-- survey, Mountain Road residents are most inclined of all township r residents to predict substantial growth over the next ten years. Nearly as many though, felt that the most likely scenario was nzoderute growth

- ...... which is the dominant sentiment throughout Worth Township. There a1 ... - ...... - was overwhelming agreement (85%) that no growth over the next ten years was the least likely of all growth scenarios. This differs from the ...... - ..... overall opinion in Worth Township in two important ways: It is the only area in which the majority of respondents anticipate substantial growth Substantial Modenlc No Growth MatLkly NsilMosIUkly 0 Lruilikly in the future rather than moderate growth, and fewer than average percentage of respondents consider no growth as very likely at all. These views undoubtedly reflect the fact that Mountain Roadlhas been the main focus of residential development in the township in recent I years and residents apparently do not have much reason to expect these trends to change. I

Worth Township Survey: 1997 EXPECTATIONS OF MODERATE GROWTH The prevailing attitudes regarding future growth in Worth Township are best WORTH TOWNSHIP expressed by the residents of the numerous hollows which run perpendicular Ardery and Sunnyside Hollow Respondents (19) to the valley of the Bald Eagle Creek winding through the foot hills of the 100 I Allegheny Plateau. These are the traditional ‘communities’ of Worth Township, sparsely populated and relatively slow growing, based around what remains of the hillside agriculture upon which these areas were settled. Grouped here are the major hollows in the northeastern portion of the township, Ardery and Sunnyside Hollows (top) and (below) Reese Hollow which is in the southwestem part of the township. Rcese Hollow residents are grouped together with those along the U.S. 220 south of Port Matilda partly for statistical reasons (there were too few 220 south respondents) and because this portion of U.S. 220 is not as intensely traveled as it is north of Port Matilda where it is shared by U.S. 322, neither is it as developed. For Reese Hollow and U.S. 220 S. Respondents (28) all these areas, the expectation of ntoderute growth into the future is most lOOT------pronounced (considered most likely by any where from 73% to 95%). The next most likely growth scenario according to people in all these areas is

subsruntiul growth. Again, very few see IZOgrowth as a likely future for Worth Township.

Worth Township Survey: 1997

. ... LL--., ,-I> .--_> .-,: I. ,., A DIVERSITY OF EXPECTATIONS The areas depicted in these two graphs basically string together the WORTH T0,WNSHIP communities along the main commuter route from Clearfield and wcstern Respondents from Flat Rock, Laurel Run, and U.S. 322 W (26) Centre Counties to the State College area. Flat Rock and Laurel Run arc 100 residential areas along the valley through which U.S. 322 climbs the Allegheny Front. Though rural, these areas are located hard by the heavily traveled route. U.S. 220 north of Port Matilda Borough is

4 distinct in that it is basically the only area of commercial developnicr in 40 the township. It shares designation with U.S. 322 so it carries all traffic 20 to State College as well as truck traffic to and from 1-80. It stands to bc most directly affected by the proposed 1-99 project bccausc much of irs 0 traffic will be rerouted. On the other hand, the new 1-99 interchange (U.S. 322/220) will be located along U.S. 322 west of Port Matilda and WORTH TOWNSHIP will also be greatly affected. Given these facts, it is somewhat surprising Respondents from U.S. 220 North of Port Matilda (12) vvv , that respondents from these areas were the least likely of Worth Township residents to foresee substantial growth in the future. Like most of the township, the majority agreed that moderate growth was most likely, but unlike the other areas discussed, a significant pcrcentagc

P.4 40 considered no growth as a possible scenario for the future - notc the relatively low percentages rating no growth as the least likely future 20 compared to other areas in the township.

Worth Township Survey: 1997 The Future Of worth Township: according to the 1997 Worth Township Survey

Almost half of the respondents feel that Worth Township will be a better place to live in five years. The other half (51 %) are roughly split between those who feel it will become less desirable and those who think it will stay about the same. Among those who see substantial growth as the mosr likely development course for the next ten years, however, there is greater optimism: two thirds saying Worth will be more desirable. Comments on the survey form indicate that this optimism is guarded. Several state that Worth Township will be more desirable only if 1-99 is completed, while others emphasize that it will be more desirable only with good planning and reasonable regulation (zoning). The main reason given for those expecting Worth Township to become less desirable is concern over unchecked growth, - variously referred to as overdevelopment, overcrowding, etc. Several comments also associate higher taxes with development. While perceptions about the future range widely, there is a persistent theme voice in the comments regarding the need for planning: More Desirable “At least has the potential (of becoming more desirable)” “If properly developed” “If regulated well, but not overkill on regulations” “I hope more desirable with slow growth and good planning” “More desirable with zoning laws enforced”

Less Desirable “Due to lack of growth control being enforced by the township” “Overdevelopment creates urban-type problems” “Too much growth and taxes” “Overcrowding will cause a decline in living conditions while raising costs” “The rural flavor will continue to disappear. We some advanced planning to channel growth in an acceptable fashion.”

No Change “I would suggest that the township try hard to keep growth at a slow rate to preserve the rural qualities of our area. That’s why I chose to live here in the first place.”

Worth Township Survey: 1997 I Worth Township Support for Various Development Activities in Percent TYPEOF DEVEU)PiMENT Amount of Development-- High MoQrate Low None Residential Sinde Family Homes 57 25 10 8 Senior Citizen Housing 27 49 16 8 Moderatelv Priced Housinz" 27 46 17 10 Seasonal Homed Cabins 21 30 34 15 Townhouses 14 32 29 25 Apartments 5 20 36 39 Mobile Homes 4 21 37 38 Mobile Home Parks 2 8 23 67 Commercial Office Buildings 11 26 39 24 Commercial Developments 7 34 37 22 Government Offiic es 6 17 45 32 Industrial Light Industrv 14 41 28 17 Research & Development 13 24 36 27 Logging 6 24 36 33

Heaw Manufacturing 4 ' 11 25 60 Mining 1 4 23 72

Recreation 40 32 14 14 Mixed Develmment 13 45 25 17

Types of Dewlopment with Majority Support in Worth Township Percent giving support to moderate to high amounts of the following Single Family Housing 82 Senior Citizen Housing 76 Moderate Income Housing 73 I: Recreational Development 72 Mixed Development 58 Light Industrv 55

Types of Dewlopment with Majority Opposition in Worth Township Percent opposing any amount of the following: Minino 72 Mobile Home Parks 67 Heaw Manufacturing 60

Types of Dewlopment with Plurality Opposition in Worth Township Percent opposing any amount of the following: Anartments 39 Mobile Homes 38

Worth Township Survey: 1997 Support for Residential Development in Worth Township Results based on the Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997

(Sinale Familv Homes1

High Low

I keasonaI/Recreationad IApart ments

4oC_...... i ....._..__. i....._..._ i...... i...... _.._...... ;I

.. . I High Low High Low

IMobile Homes1 (Mobile Home Park4

100 u) 1 +cn c c c a, a, -0 80 U c c 0 0 Q n cn 60 u) a, a, IY CK L 40 0 c. cc c a, 2a, 20 2 B B 0 High Low High Low

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 Where Should New Development Occur? Around Port Matilda and Along U.S. 3221220 The majority of respondents feel (54%) that the 60, 50 best place for new growth to occur would be around

40 the existing Borough of Port Matilda. Another 28% say that it is a good second choice. The only other 30 location named as a preferred location for future 20 growth is the area along routes 322 and 220. 10 U.S. Almost 40% said that these were the best areas for 0 Most Desirable Undesirable development while they were named as second best - Port Matilda U.S. 322/220 locations by 45% of respondents. There may be some overlap in people’s interpretation of these two choices in that the U.S. 322 and U.S. 220 corridors are the main developed areas around the borough, so for some these descriptions may mean the same place. Regardless, it is clear that Port Matilda is seen as the central village for Worth Township and as such the place where the major population and commercial development should be focused. Another survey question asked if local government should, with its influence over growth and development, direct new growth to areas in and adjacent to existing boroughs and villages (meaning Port Matilda primarily). Two thirds of those surveyed stated that this goal should be encouraged (67%), while 22% were undecided and only 1 1% said that it should be discouraged. Of those areas in Worth Township directly affected by the impact of directing growth to Port Matilda and along existing highways (U.S. 322 west of Port Matilda, U.S. 220 north and south of Port Matilda) the response is almost identical regarding growth around Port Matilda but considerably less inclined to develop along the highways than the township-wide feeling: while the same proportion think developing along U.S. 322/220 is most desirable (37%), far fewer see it as second best (only 26% as compared to 45% township-wide). Also, as might be expected, a larger percentage of people living along U.S. 322/220 feel that it is the least desirable location for new development (compare 21% for those living along these routes to only 5% township-wide). Though some differences among these three places do appear in the statistics, the sample sizes were too small to make any reliable claims about the resident’s attitudes. In summary, there is consensus throughout the township that developing in and around existing built-up areas is preferred to open space (see below), and that even the places slated for future development generally agree though less enthusiastically.

Worth Township Survey: 1997 Should Open Space Be Developed? There is very little support in Worth

Wooded and Azriculturalc Land Township for developing wooded land and I almost none for developing farmland. In 50 I - fact, the majority (5 1%) say that farm land is the least desirable location for new growth and another 35% feel that it is at least somewhat undesirable. As to whether local government should use its influence l Most Desirable Undesirable - over growth and development to preserve Wooded -I Farmland farmland, nearly 90% encourage this while only 6% discourage it: the remaining 7% are undecided. For woodland, the largest single group (38%) feel that woodland development is somewhat undesirable and another 31 % indicate that it is the least desirable location. Clearly there is a strong feeling against new development in the wooded areas of the township but it is not seen by as many people in Worth as quite as important as farmland. There is a small but significant percentage of people who feel that the woodland areas really should be developed. It is not clear whether they represent a part of the population that would like residential development in woodlands or are in favor of more logging activity. There is some debate evident in resident’s comments between proponents of “best management practices forestry” which they see as necessary foq maintaining high quality forests and people who see logging operations themselves as a nuisance and a danger.

0 Forest land preservations should be encouraged. That is the for timber production & natural regeneration, with harvests of high quality timber every 50 - 100 years. I am confused where you list “logging” as a ‘type of development activity’. [D]o you mean best management forestry? [or] getting rid of forests so the land can be developed?

[The] logging outfit that has his saw mill set at the end of E. Mt. Rd. in Huston Township brings not a thing into Worth Township. We have a weight limit on E. Mt. Rd. yet he ... travels it even during the thawing season ... it is illegal to do so. Our roads have gotten busted up real bad. Why hasn’t he been made to bond E. Mt. Rd. or stay off. Think of the money saved in our account if loggers were made to bond roads; [It] is used for a business road with no money coming to the Township from him, no taxes, no nothing, but damaged roads. He is a danger to our area, because he travels pretty fast once he hits the black top.

Overall, the concept of protecting open space from residential development is widely supported: eight of ten encourage the township to use its influence over growth and development to this end.

Worth Township Survey: 1997 I I I Asked in terms of protecting natural areas, the percentage saying they encourage it is even higher (90%). The majority (69%) would like to see industry directed to industrial parks. In all probability this means existing industrial parks in other places, State College, Bellefonte, etc. Most people commute at least as far as State College already and there is Should Government Seek to Minimize far more interest in preserving Worth New Growth and Development Township’s rural atmosphere than in attracting , 50 I new industry. A much lower percentage, but still nearly half (47%) encourage the goal of minimizing new growth and development. At the same time about one in five (19%) feel such a no growth policy should be discouraged. Another 34% are undecided. 3 Encourage Undecided Dscounge PLANNING The survey results demonstrate broad consensus regarding where future growth should and should not occur and indicate strong support.for local government policies which direct growth in such a way as to protect open space. There is also a clear preference for single family housing over any other type of development (there is an expressed aversion to mobile homes and trailer parks as weII). To these ends, there is considerable (majority ) support for traditional planning tools - comprehensive planning and land use controls. Graphically depicted below are Worth resident’s responses to these statements:

Worth Township Support for Planning Activities 80 70 60 50 d C 40 0 30 20 1Q 0 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Regulation Subdivision & Land Development

Agree Undecided Disagree

Worth Township Survey: 1997 1) Concerning Comprehensive Planning - Where I live should have an overall plan which identifies where di’erent types of development should occur.

0 68% in all express agreement with this principle 0 43% (:he largest single response) say they agree strongly 0 While one in five (20%) disagree, only 9% opposed comprehensive planning absolutely (strongly disagree)

2) Concerning Land Use Regulations - Where I live should have regulations that describe where different types of development can occur.

0 Three quarters of respondents agree with this, indicating that having land use controls in place is a more pressing issue than the plan they implement 0 44% (the largest single response) say they agree strongly 0 Only 14% disagree generally and 9% opposed zoning absolutely (strongly disagree)

Interest in planning in general reflect citizen’s concerns about the proposed 1-99 project, the potential it has for initiating rapid changes, and unease over the possibility of rapid residential development. The specific interest in land use controls (or zoning) may also have to do with people’s desire to limit what they see as ‘urban-type’ or ‘State College-type’ development: Adult Entertainment and Trailer Parks.

0 [calling for ‘adequate zoning and construction regulations’ one respondent says: If “pornographic” establishments are allowed to exist, Worth Township will become the “ampit” of Centre County. 0 We understand that some measure of zoning is necessary to preventldiscourage ‘yamily- unfriendly” businesses (i-e.,End Zone, “Adult” Bookstores) from moving into the township. 0 I would hope that with zoning a trailer park or junk yard would not be developed across from my residence.

3) Concerning Subdivision & Land Development Ordinances - Where I live should have minimum standards that apply when land is subdivided or developed.

0 A majority (60%) agree with this but unlike zoning and comprehensive planning the largest response is not in strong agreement, 28% strongly agree 0 A higher percentage of respondents do not agree here, and 17% express outright opposition (strongly disagree)

Part of the reason for the relative lack of support for Subdivision and Land Development standards is because of the way the question was asked. It can alternately be interpreted as meaning “at least” minimum standards or “the” minimum as in minimal standards. In the comments several people pointed out this ambiguity. There is, of course, no way of knowing but this may help explain the higher degree of opposition to this planning tool compared to zoning, and the lower number of people agreeing strongly.

Worth Township Survey: 1997 WORTH TOWNSHIP

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY

REPORT & SUMMARY

Appendix A Background Anticipating the potential impacts of the new 1-99 and the development of an interchange in Worth Township, the Township Supervisors expressed interest in beginning a planning program and approached the Centre County Board of Commissioners for assistance. In December 1996 the Commissioner’s responded by selecting Worth Township as the pilot project for the Local Planning Assistance Program, an initiative of the Centre County Government. The Centre County Planning Office is working with the Supervisors and Commissioners to select a consultant to provide planning services. The project is to be paid for by a combination of local, County, and State (grants) funds. The first step in the Comprehensive Planning process was to conduct a survey of citizen’s opinions. To this end, the Worth Township Citizen Survey was sent to all 368 tax paying households in the township on March 1. The survey questionnaire asked for township resident’s opinions on 1) general problems facing the township, 2) future growth, 3)kinds of development, and 4) planning goals. There were 124 completed survey forms returned, just over one third (a response rate of 33.4%). This report contains a summary of the survey results. This is not based on a random sample - since all were invited to respond - so it must be noted that this analysis is based on a self -selected cross-section of Worth Township residents. -_ Worth Resident’s Most Pressing Concerns ...... These are the issues most commonly listed

as the leading concern of Worth Township residents...... Respondents were asked to rank several different ...... types of issues, some of which are seen as major problems - like road maintenance - and others that ...... are simply matters of great importance, as with fire ...... ! protection. Judging from the comments on the questionnaire, residents are preoccupied with the ...... ! condition of township roads first and foremost, and I ...... then express their apprehension about future growth - I and protection of farmland and open space. There is Rod Mlinlc~nce Fire PmlscriDn Fnmls Gmwtb Water Sopply Farm Prcrcnation I no mention of current fire protection or water supply being a problem among the numerous comments. A topic that many (56)people numbered among the ! top three (but not number one) is the issue of traffic safety. Future growth and farm preservation are discussed further as they relate to planning, but road maintenance is an immediate and pressing concern i clearly seen as a problem independent of people’s womes about the future. . .I Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 .-I The Future of Worth Township planning and promoting slow growth were indicated Residents were asked if Worth Township by many respondents regardless of how they would be a better or worse place to live in five years envisioned the future. and the response was mixed. The largest single Respondents were asked to assess the percentage (49%) thought the township would likelihood of different amounts of growth occumng become a more desirable place, yet just over half over the next ten years: substantial, moderate, or no (5 1%) said that they expected it to stay the same or growth. Nearly 90% stated that they foresee either get worse. moderate or substantial gro’wth (58% predicting that continued moderate growth was the most Future of Worth Township likely). As for what they did not expect to see, one Will it be more or less Desirable in 5 years quarter predicted that substantial growth was the 50 least likely scenario for the future. The other three quarters stated that a no growth future was the least 40 likely of all.

30 Preferred Types of Development The survey listed various types of development 20 which could occur including a range of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and mixed 10 development activities. The only types with significant support (at least 70% for moderate to 0 high amounts) were several kinds of residential Better Same Worse development. The only others receiving majority support were mixed development and light industry. People’s attitude about the future of Worth Township seems to reflect how well they expect local government to respond to development pressures. In the comments, for instance, many of the respondents noted that things would get better but only with “proper development, slow growth, and good planning”. On the other hand, many respondents who foresaw a worsening of conditions cited “lack of growth control, overdevelopment, and unchecked growth” as the reason for their pessimism. Of course, not everyone who responded The majority of respondents opposed any amount of to the survey agreed about the need for planning and the following: Mining (72%),Mobile Home Parks growth control (as a matter of fact, some were (67%),and Heavy Manufacturing (60%). vehemently opposed to any type of regulation), but the themes of controlling development through

Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 The above statement introduces the Worth they agreed strongly, while 23% disagreed; less than Township Citizen Survey Questionnaire; the main half of these disagreed strongly (9%). m-poses being: 1) to establish the level of support for Subdivision & Land Development - there was less 2omprehensive planning and land use controls, and 2) support for and greater opposition to subdivision & to determine the development directions that residents land development standards than for the other planning ;eel local government should encourage. activities. This is in part due to some confusion due to Comprehensive Planning - Residents were asked to the phrasing of the statement residents were asked to ndicate how they felt about the following statement: respond to: “Where I live should have minimum “Where I live should have an overall plan which standards that apply when land is subdivided or dentifies where different types of development should developed.” The confusion stems from the word &cur.’’ The majority (68%) agreed with the statement minimum which, as is evident from the comments, was 2nd the largest single group (43% of the total) said they alternately interpreted as minimal standards. As such, igreed strongly. Only 9% strongly disagreed while some of the people who said they disagreed were another 1 1% disagreed; the rest had no strong feelings. objecting to the idea that minimum standards are too

Support for Planning in Worth Township 80 2 70 60 i50 40 L 2 30 ;20 210 0 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Regulabon Subdivision 8 Land Development Agree Undecided 0 Disagree

Land Use Regulation - Residents were asked the low rather than objecting to the concept of standards. ollowing statement, “WhereI live should have Nonetheless, the majority agreed (60%) while 28% I i-egulations that describe where different types of disagreed and the rest (1 2%) were undecided. ieveloprnent occur.” Though not mentioned by These results may be surprising to some given iame, such regulations refer to zoning and it was that the area has not traditionally been very interested apparent from the comments on most surveys that in such regulations. Yet the experience of seeing the [ iespondents understood this. Three quarters of nearby Centre Region grow so rapidly, combined with respondents agreed with the statement, indicating that the anxiety over the inevitable changes that will be ’laving land use controls in place is an even more brought by the 1-99 project have people thinking about 1 pressing issue than the comprehensive plan they possible ways to manage future growth for a better $nplement. The largest single response (44%) said future. 1 Worth Township Citizen Survey: 1997 PLANNING GOALS strongly encouraged the development of the I Respondents were asked where they felt township's wooded land, but judging from the new development should occur. The majority comments, they are proponents of sustainable I (54%) thought that the very best location would forest management rather than advocates of be around Port Matilda Borough, and another clearing the forest for residential use. 28% said it was at least a good location. In a Overall, the concept of protecting open separate question, 67% indicated that local space from residential development is widely government, with its influence over growth and supported: 80% encouraged the township to use development, should direct growth to areas its influence over growth and development to this end. When asked in terms of protecting

Around Port Matilda and Along US. 3221220 Wooded and Agricultural Land 60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 I 0 Best Good Poor worst Best Good Poor worst

Port Matilda U.S. 220/322 Wooded @ Farmland

._ -_ adjacent to existing villages and boroughs. This description also encompasses the U.S. Route 220/322 corridor which was seen as a natural and scenic areas, support was even good or best location for new growth by 82% of stronger (90%). respondents. This preference for directing new growth Finally, respondents were asked if they to existing built up areas stands in stark contrast would encourage the minimization of new to the sentiments expressed with regard to growth and development. The largest group .. J woodland, farmland, and open space in general. (47%) indicated that local government should There is very little support in Worth Township to minimize growth. The next largest group I try i for developing wooded land and almost none for of respondents (34%)were undecided about this developing farmland. In fact, the majority no new development policy goal, while one in I (5 1%) saw farmland as the worst location for five opposed it. Thus, while there is new development. Another 28% indicated that ' considerable support for minimizing growth, the it was a poor choice. Woodland development idea has far less support than the more specific received slightly less opposition than farmland goals of slow growth and protection of open but almost spaces. 70% felt that the woods an undesirable location. There was a minority of respondents who I Worth Township Resident’s Most Pressing Concerns

0 Road Maintenance was rated as the most important topic to be addressed by local government. Fire Protection was second and Future Growth was third.

1 The Future of Worth Township

0 The largest percentage (49%) said they thought the township would be a more desirable place in five years, yet just over half felt it would stay the same or get worse.

0 Almost 60% of survey respondents foresee moderate growth over the next 10 years with another 30% expecting substantial growth.

Preferred Types of Development

0 Residential development in general was preferred over commercial and industrial, but only selected types: i.e. single family, senior citizen, moderate income, and recreational(seasona1).

0 Types of development receiving the most opposition were mining, mobile home parks, and heavy manufacturing.

Planning

0 The majority (68%) felt that Worth Township should have a comprehensive plan.

0 An even greater proportion (75%) agreed that there should be regulations describing where where different types of development can occur.

. Planning Goals

0 The preferred locations for new development are around Port Matilda Borough and along U.S. I Routes 322 and 220. :. The last place most people want to see new development is on existing farmland. Protecting ! wooded land, and open space in general, from development was also widely supported.

i Taxes \ 0 Over 70% of those surveyed indicated that they would be willing to pay additional taxes to receive additional services for the township. i

Analysis By the Centre County Planning Office An Initiati ve of- the Centre Countv Cornmisstone.. rs i !

I I: APPENDIX B

INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS

Major Centre County Industries (1998)

Regionally Located industries (1998)

1 I I 1 i

I ..i B-1 -I i

MAJOR CENTRE COUNTY INDUSTRIES

! I

I I !

I I I I I Appendix B

._I APPENDIX B

Major Centre County Industries

1998

Industry Number of Employees

1. Aqua Penn Spring Water Co. - Milesburg 150 (spring water bottler)

2. Autotech USA, Inc. - State College 250 (industrial electronic manufacturer)

3. Auto Accessories of America - Boalsburg 90 (auto parts & accessories manufacturer)

4. Bellefonte Lime Company - Bellefonte 200 (lime & limestone production)

5. C-Cor Electronics Inc. - State College 510 (cable TV distribution equipment manufacturer)

6. Cannon Instrument Company - State College 90 (viscosity measuring equipment manufacturer)

7. Cannondale Corporation - Philipsburg 100 (bicycle accessories manufacturer) a. Centre Concrete Company - State College 60 (ready-mixed concrete production)

9. Centre Daily Times - State College 150 (newspaper & commercial printer)

IO. Centrex Precision Plastics, Inc. - Bellefonte 105 (injection molded plastic manufacturer)

11. Cerro Metal Products Co. - Bellefonte 677 (brass rod, wire, forgings, & low melting alloys manufacturer)

12. Charles Navasky & Co. - Philipsburg 600 (menswear manufacturer)

13. Con-Lime Inc. - Bellefonte 128 (lime & limestone production)

14. Corning Asahi Video Products - State College 1,200 (TV panels & glass funnels manufacturer) Industry Number of Employees

15. BMI-France - Snow Shoe 130 (refractory products manufacturer)

16. Gettig Technologies Inc. - Spring Mills 285 (electronic assembly & pharmaceutical equipment manufacturer)

17. Hanover Foods Corporation - Centre Hall 125

(food processor) I

18. Haven Homes, Inc. - Bellefonte 120 (modular home & office components builder)

19. Hawbaker, Inc., Glen 0. - State College 550 (highway & bridge construction)

20. HRB Systems, Inc. - State College 1,200 (fleet management, & information processing & analysis systems)

21. HRI, Inc. - State College 600 (highway const ruction)

22. Jostens - State College 550 (yearbook, lithographic & commercial printer)

23. Lee Industries, Inc. - Philipsburg 180 (stainless steel processing equipment manufacturer)

24. Locus Inc., Kaman Sciences - State College 75 (amplifiers, microwave components & radar equipment manufacturer) , 25. MAXTECH, Inc. - State College 120 (Telecommunication products manufacturer)

26. McCrossin, Inc., G.M. - Bellefonte 450 (Const r ucti o n)

27. Minitab Inc. - State College 68 (statistical software designer & distributor)

28. Murata Electronics North - State College 1,200 (ceramic capacitors, filters, & oscillators manufacturer)

29. Nittany Valley Offset - State College 60 (brochure, flyer & booklet printer)

30. North American Refractories Company - State College 60 (refractory research & development) Industry Number of Employees

31. Precise Polestar, Precise - State College 113 (business machine injection molded parts manufacturer)

32. Reichdrill, Inc. - Philipsburg 66 (drilling equipment manufacturer)

33. Restek Corporation - Bellefonte 100 + (chromatography supplies, & chemical products manufacturer)

34. Rutgers-Nease Corporation - State College 240 (chemical manufacturer)

35. Skills Industries, Inc. (sheltered workshop) - State College 65 (general assembly, packaging & janitorial services)

36. SMS Engineering Division, SMS - Bellefonte 75 (press & rolling mill machinery manufacturer)

37. Sonoco Products Company - Milesburg 200 (plastic grocery sack production)

I' I 38. State of the Art, Inc. - State College 135 (film resistor manufacturer)

I 39. Supelco, Inc. - Bellefonte 300 I (research chemicals & chromatography supplies production)

I. 40. Woodcraft Industries, Inc. - Bellefonte 80 (ready-to-fi nis h furniture manufacturer)

41. Zenith Data Systems Direct - State College 80 (computer manufacturer )

1 Source: Centre County Industrial Directory, Chamber of Business & Industry of Centre County, 1998. i i

I I

iI i

.- i REGIONALLY LOCATED INDUSTRIES

Appendix 6 APPENDIX B

Regiona I I y- Located Industries Centre County

1998 Industry ,Jumber of Emp oyees

1. Austin Powder Co. - Philipsburg 11 (explosives manufacturing) 2. Cannondale Corp. - Philipsburg 100 (bicycle accessories manufacturing) 3. Charles Navasky & Company - Philipsburg 600 (menswear manufacturing) 4. Formulated Systems - Philipsburg 7 (chemical productive coatings manufacturing) 5. Gamber Tool Company - Julian 2 (maintenance & repair of parts) 6. Grandville Hollow Pottery - Julian 11 (pottery manufacturing) 7. Houtz Instrument & Machine - Port Matilda 2 (laboratory test equipment & cancer treatment apparatus) 8. Jill Mining Company - Philipsburg 6 (coal mining) 9. Keystone Hardwoods, Inc. - Julian 10 (hardwood moldings, flooring, railings & cabinet parts) 10. King Coal Sales Inc. - Philipsburg 20 (bituminous coal strip mining) 11. Kline Tool & Die - Philipsburg 5 (machine shop, mill work, tube bending) 12. Lee Industries - Philipsburg 180 (stainless steel processing equipment manufacturing) 13. Northern Counties Coal Company.- - Philipsburg 45 (bituminous surface coal mining) 14. Olenick’s Printing Shop - Philipsburg 3 (forms and book printing) 15. Precision Machine & Welding - Julian 2 (machine shop & welding) 16. Price Lumber - Port Matilda 3

I (furniture, cabinets, paneling, & flooring) 17. Reichdrill, Inc. - Philipsburg 66 (drilling equipment manufacturing) 18. Scaif Deflector & Accessories - Philipsburg 2 (bug deflector manufacturing) 19. Shain Shop-Bilt, Inc. - Philipsburg 28 (wooden industrial arts & vocational furniture) 20. Shepard’s Machine Shop - Port Matilda 10 (machine parts for chromatography industry) t Source: Centre County Industrial Directory, Chamber of Business & Industry of .i Centre County, 1998. APPENDIX C

WORTH TOWNSHIP AUDIT REPORT SUMMARIES I (1994, 1995, 1996, & 1997)

c-1 WORTH TOWNSHIP FINANCIAL AUDIT

For the year ending December 31, 1994

Cash & Investments - Januarv 1, 1994

General Fund $ 2,919.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 2,271 .OO

Total Cash & Investments $ 5,190.00

Revenues

Taxes $ 60,432.00 Fines & Forfeits 2,111 .oo Interest 353.00 I' Intergovernmental Revenue ' 5,143.00

Liquid Fuels Aid 31,983.00 a Departmental Charges 2,997.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 23,120.00

Total Revenues $ 126,139.00

Total Cash, Investments, & Revenues $ 131,329.00

ExDenditures

General Government $ 15,568.00 I' Health & Welfare 800.00 Public Safety (Fire) 6,442.00 Public Works - Highways 45,520.00 Culture & Recreation (Libraries) 100.00 Debt Service & interest 11,882.00 Miscellaneous Expenditures 11,684.00 Capital Outlay (Streets) 2,910.00

Total Expenditures $ 94,906.00

Cash & Investments - December 31, 1994

General Fund $ 34,502.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 1,921.OO

Total Cash & Investments $ 36,423.00

Total Expenditures, Cash & Investments $ 131,329.00

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1994, and Worth Township Annual Audit & Financial Report, li.J 1994. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., March 1998.

.. i WORTH TOWNSHIP FINANCIAL AUDIT

For the year ending December 31, 1995

Cash & Investments - Januarv 1 I 1995 General Fund $ 34,502.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 1,921.OO

Total Cash & Investments $ 36,423.00 Revenues Taxes $ 60,022.00 Fines & Forfeits 2,635.00 Interest 744.00 Intergovernmental Revenue 4,795.00 Liquid Fuels Aid 32,142.00 Departmental Charges 2,764.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 107,282.00

Total Revenues $ 210,384.00

Total Cash, Investments, 81 Revenues $ 246,807.00

ExDenditures ~.

General Government $ 20,922.00 Health & Welfare 800.00 Public Safety (Fire) 7,725.00 Public Works - Highways 29,107.00 Culture & Recreation (Libraries) 100.00 Debt Service & Interest 14,957.00 Miscellaneous Expenditures 14,727.00 Capital Outlay (Streets) 134,026.00

Total Expenditures $ 222,364.00

Cash & Investments - December 31. 1995

General Fund $ 23,253.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 1,190.00

& ' $ 24,443.00 Total Cash Investments I

Total Expenditures, Cash & Investments $ 246,807.00 1

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1995, and Worth Township Annual Audit & Financial Report, 1995. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., March 1998. WORTH TOWNSHIP FINANCIAL AUDIT

For the year ending December 31, 1996

Cash & Investments - Januarv 1, 1996

General Fund $ 23,253.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 1,190.00

Total Cash & Investments $ 24,443.00

Revenues

Taxes $ 71,545.00 Fines & Forfeits 1,823.00 Interest 462.00 Intergovernmental Revenue 15,083.00 Liquid Fuels Aid 33,174.00 Departmental Charges 1,211.oo Miscellaneous Revenue 1,200.00 lnterfund Operating Transfers (Liquid Fuels) 14,320.00

Total Revenues $ 138,818.00

Total Cash, Investments, & Revenues $ 163,261.00

I' Expenditures

I' General Government $ 17,441.00 Health & Welfare 364.00 I Public Safety (Fire) 7,397.00 Public Works - Highways 75,267.00 Culture & Recreation (Libraries) 100.00 Debt Service & Interest 30,071 .OO Miscellaneous Expenditures 17,389.00

I Total Expenditures $ 148,029.00

Cash & Investments - December 31, 1996

General Fund $ 9,924.00 'i Liquid Fuels Fund 5,307.00

Total Cash & Investments $ 15,231.00

Total Expenditures, Cash & Investments $ 163,260.00

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, Department of Community and Economic Development, Centre County Municipalities, 1996, and Worth Township Annual Audit & Financial Report, 1996. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., March 1998. WORTH TOWNSHIP FINANCIAL AUDIT

For the year ending December 31, 1997

Cash & Investments - Januarv 1, 1997

' General Fund $ 9,973.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 5,307.00

1, Total Cash & Investments $ 15,280.00

Revenues

Taxes $ 72,766.00 Fines & Forfeits 2,834.00 Interest 258.00 Intergovernmental Revenue 19,168.00 Liquid Fuels Aid 33,813.00 Departmental Charges 3,645.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,059.00 lnterfund Operating Transfers _---

Total Revenues $ 135,543.00

Total Cash, Investments, & Revenues $ 150,823.00

Exoenditures

General Government $ 19,347.00 Health & Welfare 400.00 Public Safety (Fire & Planning) 9,556.00 Public Works - Highways 10,168.00 Culture & Recreation (Libraries) 100.00 Debt Service & Interest 36,553.00 Miscellaneous Expenditures I 18,013.00

Total Expenditures $ 129,426.00

Cash 8 Investments - December 31. 1997

General Fund $ 17,565.00 Liquid Fuels Fund 3,832.00

Total Cash & Investments $ 21,397.00

Total Expenditures, Cash & Investments $ 150,823.00

Source: Worth Township Annual Audit & Financial Report, 1997. Calculations by Landplan, Inc., February 1999. APPENDIX D

PLAN PRESENTATION AND ADOPTION PROCESS

Newspaper Articles

Township Planning Commission Public Meeting Minutes

Township Supervisors’ Public Hearing Meeting Agenda & Minutes

D- 1 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Preserving Worth in the Face of Change (5/23/99)

Worth Township Gets $8,700 Grant (5/24/99)

No Time to Lose to Enact Worth’s Plan (5/25/99)

Worth Township Residents Back Map of Area’s Growth (5/27/99)

Appendix D A NEW HORlZON I I

From a hillside on his Worth Township farm, Gerald Myers, right, vice chairman ofthe Worth Township Planning Commission. points to the urea where Interstate 99 will someday pass through the municipality. At le)? is Tim Deaven, chairman of the Worth Township Board ofSupervison. Preserving Worth in the face of chge Township planning What: Public meeting on for impat brought by Worth Township Comprehen- sive Plan 1-99 and Comdor When: 7 p.m. Wednesday 0 Where: Port Matilda Fire Hall, US. Route 220

WORTH TOWNSHIP - For been working to answer that ques decades, this rugged and forested tion. With the help of a consultant township in western Centre County the seven-member commission has has escaped development. despite devised a comprehensive plan or having hvo of the county's major blueprint for how the township thoroughfares - US. routes 220 should guide its future growth. and 322 - passing through its terri- Worth Township isn't alone in the tory. effort A number of other Centre Two new four-lane highways like- County municipalities also are try- ly will Ghange that. ing to figure out the best ways to CDT PHOTO I CRAIG noun About 5.5 miles of the 18mile. deal with growth that spins off the Evening rush-hour traffic is backed up more than two miles dong U.S. routes four-lane Interstate 99 from Blair arrival of the new highways. 322 and 220 at the bottom of Skytop in Worth Township. Local resi- County to the Mount Nittany Ex- In addition to outlining direction pressway will pass through Worth for future growth, Worth Township's dents hope Intentate 99 helps relieve some ofthe trafjc congestion. Township. with an interchange plan also recommends future land Outline of the plan planned as well. uses intended as the basis of a possk COMING moucw: The four-lane Corridor 0 will ble zoning ordinance. The Worth comprehensive plan Spring Township develops a plan includes everything anyone would connect 1-99 at Port Matilda with Township residents can learn for denling with 1-99 impact Interstate 80 to the north. about that proposed comprehensive ever want to know about Worth Those highways will truly put plan at a public meeting at 7 p.m. Township - from the municipality's Worth Township's 709 residents at a Wednesday at the Port Matilda Fire history to the makeup of its soils as crossroad: With 1-99 and Corridor 0 Hall. They also can offer input on the planning commission member. well as an analysis of the local econ- opening up the area, how can the direction they want the township to go. "If we don't make decisions about omy, descriptions of transportation, township's rural character and nat- 'We have to have something in our township, corporations else public schools and existing develop ural resources best be preserved? place to direct the development that where will, and they could decide to ment. For ahiosl hvo years, the town- will come here. or it will occur hel- change the township's character .."^ -L:..*- _I :-- -~ L-- ,^--l.-l,--" --:J l. l?" --.- - r ---..-- 1, I 1 i !Worth Townshp planning fori changes from 1-99, Corridor 0 .- :WORTH, continuedJrom 1A Wwth Township facts But the plan also has rccommen- . :dations about future development, + 1980 populatim: 568 -where it should go and how much 1990 population: 709, a should occur. An official document, 24.8 percent increase .the plan is a tool combining those + Propcted population .goals with practical strategies to growth by 2000: 897, a 26.5 ;meet them. percent increase : Right now, the township’s corn- + Si: 13,757 acres :mercial development occurs mostly + Land developed: 1,058 acres :along US. Route 220 east of Port or 7.7 percent of the township -MatiIda, while its residential devel- + Miles droads: 17.04 miles :opment is taking place along the roads traversing mountain benches .and hollows. . + Annual township budget: : Planning commission members pgu’re the interchange could spur Fommercial and industrial growth. .Fast-food restaurants, motels and :gas stations are possible around that :interchange north of Port Matilda. Existing routes 322 and 220 also :could see a share of commercial where: industry cheek-tejowl with .interest with new travel-related ser- residences, adult bookstores near :vices or small businesses dependent neighborhoods, fuel storage facili- &uponthe highway. ties near water supplies or sensitive 1 Besides suggesting locations for environmental areas. ‘certain kinds of enterpnses, the “Right now with no zoning, we’re comprehensive plan outlines keep very vulnerable to development that ,ing commercial growth where it is may not have the interests of the ?ow - along routes 332 and 220. township at heart” said Bill Colt * The plan also aims to preserve another planning commission mem- But while the comprehensive plan ’farmland and forest resource land ber. ‘We’re not antidevelopment or outlines possible land use options, it :where they exist by. concentrating anti-growth, but we want to have the can’t enforce them. That depends Tesidential growth along existing township folks have some input via upon a zoning ordinance. roads. land use regulations in the kind of Should township supervisors But Worth Township has no zon- growth we get: something desirable adopt the comprehensive plan - .ing, and that means the township to the community, aesthetically pleas- and that vote would happen only :could end up with anything any- ing and generating employment.” after a public hearing to be held later this summer - they will then have to decide whether to develop a zon- Routes, existing and proposed ing ordinance. That ordinance would provide the details that translate the in Worth Township comprehensive plan’s land use recommendations into law. Off the path People don’t move to Worth Township for convenience. CLEAR FIELD At noncommute times, it can i take about 20 minutes to drive to 4 State College. 3 During rush-hour, that time can double, as traffic often backs up at Martha Furnace, where Route 322 comes off Skytop Mountain. While it has bouts with urban-like traffic, the township has no sizable COT GRAPH stores. Residents generally drive to Worth Township is at a crossroad due to Interstate 99 and Corridor Philipsburg, Tyrone or the Centre 0,planned four-lane highways. The roads will bring residential and Regon for groceries, although milk commercial growth to the rural township, say members of the plan- and some food can be purchased in ning commission, who have developed a comprehensive plan and Port Matilda. possible zoning ordinance to help direct and control that growth. ‘_The township has some unwek ,.nm;orr tnnn-.\h., -...... 11 ax--- !

changes from 1-99, Corridor- 0,-- than 5,500 acres - nearly 40 percent- of the township’s total area - have slopes greater than 25 percent, according to the comprehensive plan. An additional 4,800 acres have slopes between 15 percent and 25 percent. Hollows and small valleys have the flattest land and have been farmed for generations. Winding through those valleys and etched into the hillsides are the township’s dozen roads - some unpaved. But as the Centre Region builds up and traffic intensifies, locales like Worth Township become more attractive as places to live. Further fueling growth is the fact that land prices are lower than those in the State College area. In anticipation of similar growth, Union Township has begun working on a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, said Jon Eich. assistant director of the Centre County Planning Office, which provided planning services for the Worth CDT PHOTO / MICHELE MOT1 Township plan. Worth Township supenisors chairman Tun Deaven, right, and planning covt- Huston Township, sandwiched mission officer Gerald Myers meet at a dirt road off Luurel Run Road between Worth and Union, has that is one of PennDOTs proposed-routes for Corridor 0. called the county to talk about setting up a planning commission, Eich wise supports the comprehensive meeting. Already, residents have said. Farther east, Boggs Township plan. But he, too, has reservations been asked for their views. has begun revising its comprehen- about zoning. Two years ago, the planning com- sive plan and zoning ordinance. To (say we) have to have a commission surveyed residents and ‘We know growth is coming,” mercial district in Worth Township determined that 68 percent of said Gerald Myers, a 35-year Worth doesn’t make sense,” Reese said. “I respondents favored a comprehen- Township resident who also serves know the comprehensive plan isn’t sive plan, said Jeff Spackman, a on the planning commission. ‘We much without zoning, but it would township native and planning com- want to get something in place be better if we could work with other mission member. before the road comes.” municipalities and share zones.” ‘The.last place they wanted to see Tim Deaven, who sits on the development was farmland, open Regulating land use Worth Township Board of Super- space and wooded land,” said worth Township native Don visors and on the planning commis- Spackman. who lives on the family spachanrecalled that 40 years ago SiOn, acknowledges that a zoning farm. His father is Don Spackman. he rode his bicycle on Route 22Q and ordinance would require some of At a public meeting detailing the rarely saw a car. Now there are days every type of development. But to survey results held 18 months ago, when the traffic continuous^ Deaven. that’s preferable to uncon- support for a plan was strong. I While Spackman likes the com- development. Since then, the area learned of prehensive plan’s recommendation ‘The need is there because the Corridor 0, the second interstate to to keep farms in agriculture - potential for growth is there,” bisect the township. including the spread that has been in Deaven said. “If we have no regula- As a result, support for the plan I his for about years - he tions, growth will run rampant, and and a sense of urgency to enact it is concerned a zoning ordinance what everybody seems to like about seem to have grown, Fergus said. open the door to land uSeS this area will be gone: the scenic ‘We want to take the wants and i now not likely. beauty, the rural character and a wishes of the residents and put them I. State law requires zoning ordim small community where people into something positive to protect nances to allot a percentage of land each Other.” the rural atmosphere of the town- for all uses - from industrial to res- public involvement ship,” Spackman said. idential. ‘‘Zoning is OK, but you have “If the township wants the ability . .I! to allow for other uses, and nobody About 20 years ago, Worth Town- to regulate growth. it needs this doc- wants the industrial Spackman ship devised a comprehensive plan ument.” said. but couldn’t muster enough resident Fifth-generation dairy farmer support to adopt it. The planning Margaret Hopkins can be reached Ron Reese, who also intends to keep commission hopes to involve the at 231-4643 and mhopkins@centre- i he family farm in agriculture, like community with Wednesday’s public dUllyCOm. I , ...... -_..__ . ..._ .. . -- - . . . .- - - - I 1 . .. ..

-. . .

.. .

-. -.- ._. ._

SINCE 1898.

CENTRE DAllY TIMES LOUHeidman - President/ Publisher I . .-I John WiMiller - VUCPnsidcnd &WVC E&T Henry Haia III - Vue RCndenU CFO Be* Bennett - Managing Edimr Bill Reader - Editorial Page Editor A Knight Ridder Newspaper CENTRE nAl1Y TIMES Lou Heldman - Prendenrl .Fublsshcr John Wm Miller - Vice Prcnderd Excrutive auor

~ Henry Hair 111 - Vice Prendenr! 00 - Becky Bennett - Managng Editor Bill Reader - EdlronaI Page airor . A Knight Ridder Newspaper .: _.

1 No time to owns ship c~iaisare on the right in& 1 with the plan to mzinain the rownshiD’s rural bencfits once the hign- are built The plan lose to enact calls for as Iinle dimage as posside to farins, @res= and open while accommodating some economic growch along the hignmy cor- worth‘s plan ridors. -. Those 06cb.l~deseie credit for bravely mentioning zoning - rarely a popular idea in fural areas, espeaaIly areas that do not have aiting for later to address land- any zoning des mort Township is among use issues in Centre County ple 14 muniapaiiries in Cente Counp- without simply isn’t going to cut it zoning). Interstate 99 is under consmc- As it stands, the township has no efiective tion; engineering for Corridor 0 is under way. Egal means to conml development ?here is :?here simply is no more later to wait for. dothing to prevent slipshod development from Wednesday night - is Worth Township’s turn SpiJIing ofithe highffay mts and spreading b stop waiting. At a public meeting, ulannina into the counuyside. offidalsalair - Fith a locally developed zoning ordinance, theif ideas for how residents could decide where to put housing that one municipaii- developments, where to locate industrial and ty should prepare . commerdaI businesses and where farmland for pending and forests would be strongly protected. changes - and it .? The key to making sure that this compre would be for smart :hensive plan and new zoning laws will work for the residents to :;the communiry is for the community to get attend. +wotved right now. In Forth Township, later i In particular, be much too lat~,. residents should qpill pay attention to the I suggested zoning . I CDT ChS-/Y? ordinance that would.- give some teeth to the plan.

..’i

r_-J SINCE ,1898

CENTRE DAllV TIMES Lou Heldman - Presidenu Publishcr John W~nnMiller - Vice Presidenu Executive Ediror Henry Haitz 111 - Vice Presidenu CFO Becky Bennett - Managing Editor Bill Reader - Editorial Page Editor

. _. TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING

MINUTES

Appendix D Minutes of the Public Meeting Worth Township's Comprehensive Plan Draft Wednesday, May 26,1999 Port Matilda Fire Hall

Officials Attending: Chuck Fergus, P.C. Chair; Jerry Myers, P.C. Vice Chair; Jeff Spackman, Bill Colt, Dean Lapp, Laird Confer, Supervisors Tim Deaven, Jeff Woodward, and Joe Guenor; PA State Representative Lynn Herman, Huston Township Supervisors Sue Beyer and Art Rit enour.

Chuck Fergus opened the meeting by welcoming all attendees. He introduced all the program participants and recognized other attending officials. Introduct.., were the Worth Township Supervisors and Township Secretary, Representative Lynn Herman, Centre County Planning personnel Jon Eich, Cindy Hendricks (PSU Land Analysis Lab) and Bob Donaldson; Bald Eagle Area School Board member Keith Reese and Huston Township Supervisors Sue Beyer and kt ktenour. Chuck read the CDT editorial from May 25 edition. He explained the meeting's - purpose and summarized the time and effort spent in preparing the Comprehensive Plan. Chuck pointed out that this has been a two-year process and he encouraged public participation. He noted that the comprehensive plan is a set of guidelines and not regulations. He noted that no change to existing land use would be required by the Plan. He summarized the resources inventory, orals, objectives, the recommendations and strategies of the Plan. Chuck summarized the plan review and compliance with the advertisement requirements. He noted that the Plan would be available for review from the Township Secretary as well as a Plan Summary. He pointed out that the Supervisors would hold a public hearing later this year. He also expressed thanks to the Port Matilda Fire Company for use of the building.

Jerry Myers itemized the reasons for the developing the plan were the public opinion survey sent out in March 1997 with the tax notices and the reorganization of the Planning Commission after a May 1997 public meeting. Jerry pointed out that the plan addresses identified concerns from the Survey: a) preserve rural character; b) direct future growth; c) protect local freedoms; preserve local control; avoid control by outside interests; d) provide opportunity for citizens to participate in community's future; e) preserve natural resources, farmland and lifestyles; f) identify, manage and protect community assets; g) establish realistic policies to guide and coordinate growth; h) assure that cost of new development is borne by its developers; i) if desired, Plan can be the basis for municipal zoning.

Jerry also noted that the Plan represents guidelines and that it is only the beginning of the process and that the Supervisors will need to conduct a public hearing before adoption and then zoning, if desired.

Jeff Spackman presented the results of the 1997 survey and reiterated the strong backing from the survey respondents to proceed with the planning process. Jeff noted that the Township Public Meeting Minutes , Wednesday, May 26, 1999

Supervisors with the assistance of the County Planning Office, developed and distributed the Public Opinion Survey. The survey’asked residents’ opinions on 1) general problems facing the Township, 2) future growth, 3) kinds of preferred development, and 4) planning goals. Of the 368 surveys mailed, 124 were returned. Jeff reported that the Supervisors convened a public meeting to present results of the public opinion survey in May 1997 to determine interest in developing Municipal Comprehensive Plan with finding partially provided by the County. The Township Planning Commission was reorganized and new members appointed in July 1997. The County Commissioners formally agreed to share cost of planning work with Township and co-sponsor application for Shared Municipal Services grant in August 1997. The planning process began in earnest in September 1997 and after more than 20 worksessions over an 18- month period, the second draft was completed and is presented tonight.

Bill Colt then gave some general comments before he presented a summary of the fbture land use map and the proposed land use strategies. Bill noted basically six categories of land use: WoodlandEorests - the largest area with low density and non-commercial; Agricultural - the second largest area with economy and li& style values along with crops/food production being critical; Commercial - to continue to direct this area in and along Route 220, to encourage working with nature and not strip development; Residential - to recognize and maintain existing patterns mci to maintain existing mix of densities as well; Interchange - Bill noted the pressure for development of “traveler services’’ in this area, i.e., motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Village - an extmsion of Port Matilda, a mix of compatible and exciting activities. In his summary, Bill noted that the Township wishes to be proactive rather than reactive.

Chuck Fergus, at this point, opened the floor to recognize the official review comments.

Bob Donaldson, Director of the Centre County Planning Office, made a general observation that he was encouraged by the Township’s direction. He was pleased with the pilot project and strongly supported the approach and rational behind the Plan. He said that his ofice was pleased to partner with Worth Township and encouraged others to do the same.

Tom Zilla, Centre Regional Planning Agency, encouraged all to think seriously about this endeavor. He noted that he was primarily interested in the tran! sortation aspect of this plan and noted that the COG has a planning person will be making commmts through Halfmoon Township. He encouraged the transportation efforts.

Ellen Hall, Taylor Township resident, said that although no elected official was there to represent their township, she will be a cheerleader back to their Township and encourage similar efforts in Taylor Township:

Art &denour of Huston Township said they would review and comment on the plan

Lynn Herman, 77‘ district PA Representative, complimented the Planning Commission and Supervisors for being forward thinking. He noted that he is the chair of the Local Government

2 j I’ Public Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 26, 1999

Committee and would direct any local services available as weAias support any changes to laws that would be an impediment to the planning process. He noted the committee’s regionalization emphasis, as well.

Chuck then opened the floor for general public comments

Don Spackman, property owner of Worth Township and resident of Huston Township, said that he objected to the red (commercial) district location. He said it takes the best quality agricultural land in the township and jacks the price up totally out of reach of a farmer desiring to purchase and preserve the current status as actively farmed. Ownerships do change. He believes the commercial district should stop at the BP Station (formerly Shirley’s Diner). Commercial land does not have to be flat farmland.

“I am a part-time farmer in Worth Township. I’d be happy if township was all ag. The best agricultural land is on the valley floor along 220. Because we had no land use controls in the past, much of it has become commercial, but a good bit remains. Even though it is currently being farmed, this plan does not give any incentive to continue farming when a sale occurs. Please note that the Ag Security areas are voluntary for 7 years. Landowner and supervisors can change that every 7 years or less. My point is that a zoning plan may last 30 or more years and do a better job of long-range preservation. For example, if on .‘the farmers in the red zone retire, the farmer next door has to compete with developers like Hawbakers to buy out the land. They can’t compete at all. I believe that the Ag Security Areas should all be zoned agricultural. Jerry said that neighbors of farmers may object to their activities. Presently, as security areas were challenged in the state of Indiana (or Iowa?) and the farmers lost. If Ag Security laws were deleted in Pa., the Ag zone would be an excellent back-up. Please zone Ag Security

accordingly.”-

Steve Dershimer, owner of Professional Equipment, said the township was fortunate to have a group like this. He asked for consideration to provide for sewage in the areas where development will be occumng. Mr. Dershimer said he had heard that no capacity was available at the wastewater treatment plant. Laird Confer noted that there is room for growth at the treatment plant.

Bruce McPheron, a resident on Sawmill Road, said he has always been concerned about the interchange. He is a citizen representative to the Highway Planning Committee. He encouraged the planning commission and supervisors to protect the aquatic resources and to Qive thought to sewage treatment.

Becky Miller, a resident at 73 1 Mountain Road, said she was th .nkful that the survey results were put to use and read. She was one who completed her survey. She mentioned her concern about adult entertainment businesses like on Skytop and asked that those types of businesses be i kept away from Worth Township with vigilance. Kathie Hunter answered that the township can only limit the where and how to for any business. She noted t’lat you can’t not make a place for them.

3 Public Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 26, 1999

Art Ridenour, Huston Township Supervisor, noted that they are in the process of getting a planning commission together and that they had passed an ordinance about adult entertainment. Secretary Reese noted that Worth Township had passed the bottle club referendum last Spring.

John Stanton said he was a former supervisor and that he belie) cd there was an ordinance on the books regarding adult entertainment. ' Secretary Reese asked who the solicitor was when he was a supervisor so she could contact them. He noted that Terry Williams and Jeff Bowers were solicitors then.

Bill Grove, resident on Flat Rock Road, recommended a microphone for talking.

Becky Zimmerman, a resident on Flat Rock Road, said she supported the efforts being made.

Keith Reese, Fire Chief, noted fire protection issue was raised in the survey. He said the Fire Company is serious about being the best fire service. He suggested mandatory smoke detectors and house markings to improve response time. He also noted that they have need for water supplies for their pumping needs. He also pointed out that roads need to be wide enough to get to houses needing emergency service

Bob Henry, property owner in Worth Township and resident of State College, asked what building codes and sidewalk restrictions would be included. Bill Colt asked for Mr. Henry's opinion regarding building codes. Mr. Henry said he favored building codes like they have in the Centre Region. Kathie noted that building code ordinance is an entirely different animal and not related to zoning. She also noted that Centre Co. has subdi- 'sion and land development I ordinance. Bob Donaidson pointed out that the County's subdivision and land devdop_ment.- ordinance is applicable to Worth Township in absence of their own.

Chuck summarized the next steps to be taken. He said the cormiission will review all commex and will make adjustments as necessary at their June 30 meeting. They will then submit a plan to the Supervisors with formal recommendation for JuIy/August 1999. If desired, the supervisors will advertise and hold a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan, and then adopt the plan in the AugustISeptember 1999 timeframe.

Respectfblly submitted,

.i Jadine Reese i Township Secretary

4 Public Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 26, 1999

Other Attendees: Kathie Hunter, Consultant (Landplan, Inc.) Jadine Reese, Secretary (123 Reese Hollow Road, P.M.) Matthew Adams (1 56 Laurel Run Road, P.M.) Ingrid Colt and Justin and Laura (1 195 Ardery Hollow) Katy and Ed hssmiller (463 E. Mountain Road) Chad Smith (297 Ardery Hollow Road) Bob Donaldson, Centre County Planning Ofice, 21 8 Canterbur.(Drive David Beede, P.O. Box 555, P.M. Robert M. Henry, 1209 Mayberry Lane, State College, PA 16801 Tom Zilla, Centre Regional Planning Agency, 13 1 S. Fraser Street, Suite 5, State College Polly Daughenbaugh, Port Matilda Paul Daughenbaugh, Port Matilda John Stanton, 1840 Sunnyside, P.M. Ida and Mark Lively, 808 E. Plank Road, P.M. Lynn B. Herman, House of Representatives, 207 Center Street, Philipsburg James and Bea Gunimo, 195 Shady Dell Road, P.M. Susan Beyer, Huston Township, Julian, PM Arthur M. Ridenour, Huston Township, Julian, P.M. Jim Polinchok, 375 Kennel Lane, P.M. Jack and Betsy Zimmerman, 395 Flatrock Road Ellen Hall, 1424 E. Bell Hollow Lane, (Taylor Township) P.M. Keith Reese, Bald Eagle Area School District, Port Matilda Fire Co., 123 Reese Hollow Ken Moscone, Dunckel Company, 521 Toftrees Avenue, State College, PA A. W. and Norma Grove, Flatrock Road, P.M. Jon Eich, County Planning, Bellefonte, PA Buzz and Mary Wilson, 137 Wilson Lane, P.M. Robert and Sandra Lansberry, 270 E. Mountain Road, P.M. Steve Dershimer, Professional Equipment Centre, 802 1 S. Eagle Valley Road, P.M. Don Spackman, R.D. Julian Joann Voight, 1044 E. Mountain Road, P.M. James Bradley, 250 Bradley Road, P.M. Ron Seybert, 53 1 Loveville Road, Warriors Mark, PA 16877 Paul A. Williams, Track N Trail, 1234 E. College Avenue, State College Ken and Robin Becker, 844 Beckwith Road, P.M. Bruce McPheron, 456 W. Sawmill Road Nancy Brown, 895 E. Mountain Road Tom Barr, 490 Julian Woods Lane, Julian (Huston Township) Charles Nearhoot 387 Nearhoof Lane, P.M. Mary Confer, Beckwith Road, P.M. Ryan Arner, Penn Bio-Organics, Inc., 1981 Pine Hall Drive, State College Gongiti R. Reddy, Penn Bio-Organics, Inc., 1981 Pine Hall Drive, State College

5 !

TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS’ PUBLIC HEARING MEETING

AGENDA AND MINUTES

Appendix D -._ ~ _-_-_-- .------~-----.-I I D Worth Township Superwisors I D I MEETING AGENDA I D Thursday, August 5, 1999 I I I------~---~-----~-*---~------*--- -- *------..I I. Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 11. Regular Meeting LII. Secretaxyflreasurer’s Minutes and Report IV. Outstanding Bills (add to list if you know of additional slips) V. Public Comment (limited to total of 15 minutes)

VI. Old Business I A. Planning Commission Report I B. Building Ordinance Infractions C. PennDOT Lighting Letter I VLI. General Road / Township Discussion A. Roadmastei Report

VIII. New Business A. Track N Trail Discussion and Lane name B. Cell Phone Service C. Turnback Money Investment Option D. Centre Region COG Request for Letter re fire training facility fiinds E. Dirt and Gravel Roads Program F. Corridor 0 Kickoff Meeting August 17 and 18 G. Juniata Clean Water Survey -- I-T. Bottle Club ReferendudOrdinance I. Municipal Secretary’s Class in October J. Various Correspondence - no response necessary 1. Land Use Planning Booklets from CLGS 2. Copy of final plans for Ross/Ross Lot Addition from CCPO 3. Copy of executed PennDOT Agility Agreement 4. Ltr from Halfmoon re Saybean-based dust control 5. Notification Culvert Pipe install by John Mellott & barbs and riprap R Reese 6. DEP Act 11 Notifiation fium Jeffand Angel Woodward 7. Route 322,TEA-2 1 Cmte Memo 8. Ltr from HRG. Inc. proposing engineering services 9. Cc of culvert pipe permit for Reese Hollow by PennDO’T 10. Minutes of MGFC Partnership Mtg. 6/21/99 11. PSATS Group Insurance survey 12. Notification of Census Training Workshops 13. Ltr from Pine Creek Lumber proposing timber services 14. CET Engr SeMces newletter re: BOCA codes 15. Copy of Drought Emergency Proclamation from CC Emer. Serviccs 16. 9 1 1 Readdressing project status update 17. PSATSAlert 18. Various brochures and publications

IX. Adjournment Thursday, August 5, I999

The Worth Township Supervisors met at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 5, 1999, at the Port Matilda Fire Hall. Attending: Supervisors Tim Deaven, Jue Guenot, and Jeff Wcnxiward. Secretary/ Treasurer Jadjne Reese, Visitors: Jon Eich, Ralph Huuck, Angel and Skyier Woodward, Jeff Spackman, Teny Simpson, Gerald Myers, Garrett Hwsel.. Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Chair Tim Deaven called the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan to order at 6:45p.m. Tim asked for comments. Those in attendance for the public hearing were: Jon Eich, Ralph Houck, Jeff Spackman, Terry Simpson. No comments were presented. Tim Deaven adjourned the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.

Regular Meeting At 7:03 p.m., Chairman Tim Deaven called the regular meeting of the WOFth Township Supm‘ws to order. The minutes of the previous meeting wepresented. Tim Deaven noted that 2RC and antiskid were put in the hold on Mountain Road. Jeff Mdwardmoved to approve the minutes as amended. Tim Deaven seconded the motion and it passed. The treasurer’s report was approved by a motion by Joe Guenot and seconded by Jeff Woodward and passed. The list of outstanding bills was presented for payment. Joe Guenot moved to pay the outstanding bills, the motion was seconded by Jeff Woodward and passed.

PUBLIC COMMENT None

OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission - Jerry Myers reported that the PC was moving along With the zoning process. Chair Tim Deaven asked for a motion to adopt the Comprehensive plan as presented. Jeff Woodward moved to adopt the wbrth Township Comprehensive Plan. Joe Guenot seconded the motion and it passed.

Building Ordinance Infractions - Secretary Reese reviewed those residents who had obtained building permits since last meeting, as well as the letters that wesent to residents Joe Guenot and Gerald Nlson about proper sewage permits.

PennDOT Lighting Letter - Secretary Reese is to send PennDOT a letter noting that if PennDOT requires lights along Route 322, the Township will not share in the cost.

GENERAL ROADS DISCUSSION Roadmaster Report - Jeff Woodward and Gerry Myers reported that all roads had been oiled except for Shangri Lane, Orchard Road and Melkers Hill. It was reported that the grader was broken and will need to be repaired. The roads will be mowed and then speed limit signs will be placed on Mountain Road and road signs on Spring Valley. The shoulders will be repaired on Sunnyside this month. Later in discussion, Jeff Modward moved to repair and resurface portions of West and East Mountain Road as needed. Tim Deaven seconded the motion and it passed.

Equipment -A representative from Groff Equipment presented proposal for new backhoe prior to the start of the regular meeting.

NEW BUSlNESS Track ‘n Trail Discussion - Secretary Reese noted Track ‘n Trail Will need 91 1 address since Route 322 up to Skytop is not named. 91 Iofficial had suggested that a lane be named for their use since Route 322 nmwill not be decided for a few months. Ralph Houck noted his comments to the Track ‘n Trail plan. It was suggested that new maintenance agreement for the Small Flows system be signed when Track ‘n Trail come for final signatures. Thursday, August 5,1999 I Page 2 Cell Phone Senrice - Secretary presented two proposals for cell phone service. Alltel's base sm'ce for two phones would be approximately $35 per month and no cost for the phone. Cellular One's offer included $35 monthly fee plus the cost of two phones for $99. Tim Deaven moved to go with Alltel. Jeff Woodward seconded the motion and it passed.

Turnback Money Investment Option - After some discussion of rates, it was agreed to rollover the $100,000 term for one year and to add to it the final payment of $25,000that was recently received. Joe Guenot moved to go with the one-year term. Jeff Mdwardseconded the motion and it passed. Centre Region COG Request re fire tralning funds - Tabled until the next meeting. Dirt and Gravel Roads Rogram - Secretary asked for Jeff s completion certificate from last year for files. Conidor 0 Meeting - Secretary Reese noted the Kickoff meeting for Corridor 0 to be held August 17 and 18. It was suggested that since the Comp. Ran includes a recommendation for Cm'dor 0 the Township should notify PennDOT of their recornmendationto follow the current alignment. Jon Eich will supply map to include with letter.

Juniata Clean Water Survey - Jeff Spackman was asked to fin out and return survey. WeClub RefmdumKhdinanca - Secretay noted that attorney couldn't have prepared for tonight's meeting. Municipal SeCreQary's Class - Secrstary Reese asked for permission to attend class in October. Supervisors agreed.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jadine Reese, Secretary