DAUPHIN COUNTY COM?Rehenslve PLAN AUGUST 18,1992

DAUPHIN COUNTY COM?REHENSlVE PLAN AUGUST 18,1992

I I DAUPHIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

AUGUST 18,1992’

VOLUME II: PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION DAUPHIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMlSSlON STAFF - 1992

Dauphin County Veterans Memorial Building 112 Market St., 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 -201 5 Telephone: (717) 234-2639

Executive Director ...... James R. Zeiters, AlCP

Associate Director ...... James W. Szymborski, AlCP

Staff Planner Ill ...... David F. Royer Timothy P. Reardon, AlCP Omar A. Syed Jeff Kelly

Staff Planner II ...... Michael D. Rimer Rosemary Kosiek Michael Boyer

Staff Planner I ...... Randall L. Heilman Christina Fackler Joseph Price

Planning Technician 111 ...... George E. Hubley

Planning Technician II ...... Louise L. Stewart Administrative Coordinator ...... Patty L. Buggy

Secretary ...... Chris Keefer Legal Counsel ...... Thomas D. Caldwell, Jr.

COST - $25.00 I I 1 I I DAUPHIN COUNTY - 1992

I Board of Commissioners

Russell Sheaffer, Chairman I Sally Klein Anthony Petrucci 1 Planning Commission Dorthy Ross - Chairman Donald Horner - Vice-chairman I Barry Nazar - Secretary William Chianos - Treasurer Charles Leedecker 1 Norman Kennard John Orr I I 1 I I I I I I I I DAUPHIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I TABLE OF CONTENTS PHASE I I Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 2 - History of Dauphin County Chapter 3 - Natural Environment I Chapter 4 - Population/Socio-economic Chapter 5 - Economic Base Chapter 6 - Existing Land Use Chapter 7 - Housing I Chapter 8 - Transportation Chapter 9 - Existing Community Facilities and Services 1 Chapter 10 - Administration and Finances PHASE I1 I Chapter 11 - Goals and Objectives Chapter 12 - Future Land Use Plan Chapter 13 - Transportation Plan Chapter 14 - Community Facilities a Chapter 15 - Housing Plan Chapter 16 - Plan Administration and Implementation I I I I 1 I I I I 1 BASIC STUDIES I CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING Planning is an organized process that enables managers, I elected officials, planning commission members and others to define their community’s goals and objectives, set their priorities, and seek solutions to long-term issues. Participation in the planning process enables communities to monitor, analyze, and react I effectively to change within each individual community and the county as a whole. The established planning mechanisms such as zoning ordinances, subdivision and land ordinances, official maps, 1 and comprehensive plans can be used to guide future growth and development in the community. The Comprehensive Plan, a valuable planning tool, is broad in scope, examining physical, social and I economic features that mesh to make the county of today, while seeking to apply this knowledge to the future. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN I The Dauphin County Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide that encourages orderly development in promoting the health, safety, 1 convenience, and general welfare of its citizens. The Plan formalizes the County’s goals and objectives and serves as a blueprint for the establishment of action oriented programs focusing on the growth and development of the County. It offers an I orderly plan to support and manage the homes, businesses, schools, churches, industries, and government services that occupy the variety of land use patterns. The Plan comprehensively outlines I both the current and desired municipal character, and also delineates the economic development measures of the County. Once adopted, the Plan offers a framework for continual review and 1 revision of its elements, as necessary. THE PROCESS OF THE PLAN I The Comprehensive Plan is more accurately defined as a continuous process rather than as a document. Planning is a process of rationally evaluating and determining appropriate future 1 actions through a sequence of choices. To produce an accurate, useful Plan, the County should obtain essential community information that describes the existing environment, develop a plan that encourages the most acceptable future development, 1 prepare a schedule for a capital improvement program, and then implement and monitor these activities. I Planning is often a process of problem solving. After the problems have been diagnosed, goals and planning standards can be stated, alternative solutions can be considered, feasibility I analyses can be performed, and then the accepted policies can be implemented and evaluated. Public participation through surveys

1-1 I I I

and public meetings are important in all phases of the development I of the Plan. Even though this Plan is a fluid process and may be modified I from time to time, it represents crucial decisions that are important to the welfare of the people. It embodies vital decisions of the population that the County may opt to accommodate, and the standards by which the County will be developed. It ~I mandates which land use types will be developed, where they will be located, and how they will be connected through the lines of communication and a circulation system. Decisions on the preservation of open space throughout the County are also included in the Comprehensive Plan. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN Three major steps are involved in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. First, the collecting of all essential information relating to the people and the land; second; after careful and thorough analysis of this information, the development of plans will encourage the most appropriate future development of the County while maintaining existing property values and seeking ways to provide necessary municipal facilities and services; and third; upon completion of the planning process involves putting these planning recommendations into proper action programs. This is accomplishedthroughthe adoption of official municipal maps and through the annual preparation and adoption of a capital improvement program. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into three plan elements. Phase I - Basic Studies, introduces the Introduction, History, Natural Environment, Population/Socio-Economic Profile, Economic Base, Existing Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Housing, Community Facilities and Utilities, and County Administration and Finances. Phase I1 - The Plan Development, includes Community Development Goals, Future Land Use Plan, Transportation Plan, Community Facilities Plan, and Housing. Phase I11 - Implementation, Consists of the Capital Improvement Program and Administration. LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL BASE FOR THE PLAN In the 1926 Euclid, Ohio vs Ambler Realty case, the United States Supreme Court established the precedent of allowing a community to direct its own development and growth. The justices declared that the town of Euclid, Ohio could indeed determine which land uses would be allowed within its political jurisdiction. Since that initial case, the courts have repeatedly upheld the right of a community to exercise a police power in legislating regulations governing the use of the land, within certain constraints. The legislative authority for Pennsylvania local governments to plan for and manage development within their boundaries emanates from the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act 247, as amended. This enabling legislation lists the 1-2 planning tools available to communities to accomplish these goals. The primary method to protect and provide for the best interest of citizens is through adoption of a zoning ordinance. This should be supplemented by adoption of other supportive codes and ordinances such as a building code, housing code, subdivision and land development ordinance, and comprehensive plan. Upon adoption of a comprehensive plan by the County, Act 247 requires that municipalities submit for recommendations to the county planning agency any adoption, amendment, or repeal of an official map, subdivision and land development ordinance or a planned residential development ordinance. This ensures that the Dauphin County Planning Commission may provide recommendations relating to the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground or watercourse and the location, erection, demolition or sale of any public structures located within Dauphin County.

1-3 I I CHAPTER 2 HISTORY i HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

An examination of the names of townships, municipalities, and I streets located within Dauphin County reveals the names of the courageous, tenacious men and women that left their homes in Philadelphia, West Chester, France, England, and Ireland to forge . I a new life in a pristine land. The first group of settlers, the French Huguenots such as Letort and Chartier, pushed through the frontier until they reached the Susquehanna River and the Indian Village of Peixtan. The original residents of Peixtan, the nomadic I Lenni Lenape Indians, received these pioneers and served as guides for the newcomers as they searched for animal pelts. I Survival in the harsh, rugged frontier demanded perseverance from those daring enough to surmount its daily challenges. The Scotch-Irish, colonists that possessed these attributes, migrated from Ulster, Ireland to the disputed Pennsylvania-Maryland border 1 and then to the areas along the Susquehanna River in the early days of the eighteenth century. Names such as Chambers, Maclay, and Stewart and Kelker appeared in early records listing the original I inhabitants of Peshtank, Derry, Londonderry, and Hanover Townships. The Chambers family chose the mouth of Fishing Creek (currently the site of the Hunter Mansion) as the location for their family I residence and mill operation. Many years later the Chambers family moved down the Susquehanna River and founded Chambersburg. In 1729 Peter Allen, one of the first colonists to explore and settle the land north of Paxton Creek, constructed a stone dwelling at the I mouth of the Swatara River, which is believed to be the oldest building in Paxton Township. I British pioneers also colonized the area along the Susquehanna River during the early 1700's. The site of an old Indian village called Peshtank and convergence of various Indian trails proved an acceptable location for John Harris to construct his home around 1 1719. He built a log cabin near the present site of Paxton and Front Streets and operated a ferry route across the Susquehanna River. This village called "Harris' Ferry" flourished as many more 1 people moved to the territory. Colonists continued to arrive from Ireland, England, France, Germany, and other parts of the Province, as Pennsylvania was I known, and to situate their homesteads along the fertile valleys of the Susquehanna River. During the 1750's the prosperity of these villages and the peaceful relations enjoyed with the Lenni-Lenape 1 and Iriquois Indians slowly diminished as tensions mounted between the Indians, the French, and the British. The once tranquil territory became marred by violence and brutal murders of both the I Indians and the white settlers as the French and Indian War raged through the hamlets. The inhabitants' fear during this time is I graphically depicted in the Everts' and Stewart's Historical Atlas 2 -1 I I of Dauphin County account of one settler who wrote, "Imagination cannot perceive the perils with which the settlement of Paxton was surrounded from 1754 to 1765. To portray each scene of horror 1 would be impossible - the heart shrinks from the attempt. The settlers were goaded on to desperation; murder followed murder." I Bayonets and swords had just been retired from the battles of the French and Indian War when the residents of the territory found themselves raising their swords in yet another war, the American I Revolutionary War. Battling to secure their freedom from the excessive English taxes and dominance, the colonists enlisted the support of the French, which proved effective. On March 4, 1785 the colonists in the territory known as Lancaster County, I triumphing in their new freedom, elected to demonstrate their appreciation for the French efforts and divide Lancaster County into two counties, naming the new county "Dauphin," after the I oldest son of the King of France. By 1791 the United States had elected its first president, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution of the newly created 1 United States, and John Harris lived to see the fulfillment of his ambition to establish the borough of Harrisburg. His son, John, not only shared his father's aspirations to establish Harrisburg, but also believed that someday this town would be the seat of government in Dauphin County, and perhaps the location of the state's capitol. Harris and William Maclay designed the street pattern for the town with these goals in mind. They selected several blocks for the location of the county and state government buildings and designated them as public grounds. John Harris' dream of locating the county government in Harrisburg met with little resistance; Middletown and Carlisle were considered, but Harris' arguments for Harrisburg were convincing. Harris encountered more hindrances, however, in his quest to establish Harrisburg as the state capitol. The Legislature in Philadelphia realized that the perimeter of Pennsylvania was increasing as more people moved from the eastern cities to the western frontier regions, and that they would eventually have to move the state capitol to a more central location for the shifting population. In 1795 the House agreed to relocate in Carlisle, but the Senate rejected this plan. In 1798 the House selected Wrightsville as its new location, but again the Senate refused. Finally, one year later, both parties agreed that Lancaster would be an acceptable locale for the government. For thirteen years state governmental activities transpired in Lancaster while John Harris' public land set aside for such activities would serve as a spot where Harrisburg citizens would excavate sand and gravel. Unsatisfied with the facilities and location of Lancaster, however, the Legislature again decided to relocate. In 1822, twenty-seven years after John Harris began his crusade to establish Harrisburg as the state capitol, the gavel struck the Speaker of the House's desk on Capitol Hill in Harrisburg and the Legislature commenced operations.

2-2 I

The early years at the state capitol building were not all I characterized as tranquil. During one session in 1838 the Senators vigorously debated the outcome of recent election returns. The volatile controversy caused visitors from Philadelphia, Lancaster, and other Pennsylvania towns to leap from the visitors' section into the Senate chambers. Before the incident referred to as the "buckshot war" had ended, the President of the United States, Martin Van Buren, had been alerted and federal troops were summoned to help quell the angry citizens that demanded a recount of election ballots. Several decades later, in 1897, the capitol building erupted in flames just as the Legislature was concluding 1 its agenda. The large clock in the entrance of the historic building struck wildly as the building collapsed, leaving nothing but a charred framework and the front pillars that had welcomed I Pennsylvania residents for seventy-five years. Activity not only flourished on the blocks occupied by governmental buildings, but also throughout Dauphin County. In the I late 1820,s an agreement was signed to bring the Pennsylvania Canal through the County, thus linking it to markets of western Pennsylvania, as well as parts of New York and New Jersey. Barge traffic along the Susquehanna River escalated, bringing new I products, ideas, and residents to Dauphin County. Townships continued to consolidate even though the agrarian industry I dominated the hinterlands of the County. The year 1837 is remembered as the first time the prosperity of Dauphin County was severely threatened. Banks throughout the I county and the entire nation were failing as inflation rates soared. The federal government and many private citizens had invested in highly speculative land sales in the western portion of the United States, which escalated the cost of agricultural products, leaving many with large debts. By 1837, the prosperity of Dauphin County was threatened as I inflation rates soared throughout the country. The Federal government had lent too much money to those engaging in land speculation in the western part of the nation. Eventually, the I President issued an order preventing the government from accepting paper currency. Shortly after the monetary panic subsided, entrepreneurs in Dauphin County realized that they would have to expand their-market to include other types of business, such as I silk. During this time, silk was a highly prized commodity, so the local residents attempted to buy numerous silkworm cocoons and mulberry trees (the only tree upon which the worms could survive). After two years, states began placing bans on raising the worms, so the local silkworm industry deteriorated. Spikes were being driven into the ground as the railroad 1 industry was developing across the nation. The Pennsylvania Railroad, destined to become the world's largest railroad, built its first section of railroad from Harrisburg to Lewistown. Steel I companies such as Bethlehem Steel developed in the area to support the railroad companies' need for steel products. The area's centralized location in the state and access to a major waterway,

1 2-3 I the Susquehanna River, made it an ideal center for transportation. Lumber mills soon dotted the shoreline of the Susquehanna River, 1 sending their timber products downstream to the railroad centers throughout Dauphin County, which in turn sent them on to other destinations. I The various industries that have developed along the scenic Susquehanna River banks, the early battles argued in the original capitol building, and the early relations between the Indians and 1 settlers such as Harris, Chambers, Maclay, and Allen are all rich, valuable reminders of the Dauphin County heritage. The twentieth century has been marked by the continued growth and prosperity of I Dauphin County. The construction of the new capitol building in 1903 and the rebuilding of the areas along the Susquehanna that were ravaged by floods in 1936 and in 1972 are examples of the resiliency and the fortitude of the modern "settlers ." I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I

2-4 1 I I I CHAPTER 3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT To assist in providing orderly, intelligent,. and efficient I growth for Dauphin County, it is essential that the appropriate features of the natural environment be delineated, and that this information be integrated with all the other planning tools and I procedures. The purpose of this section is to provide a practical compilation of all the available environmental data as an aid to planning in the County. It is important that government decision- I makers and the residents of the County be aware of the constraints that the natural environment may impose upon the future developers of the County. I CLIMATE Dauphin County is dominated by atmospheric flow patterns I common to Humid Continental type climate. The complex weather systems that influence the area originate in the Central Plains of the United States. As they travel eastward, they are gradually modified by the characteristics of the underlying topography. I Moisture in the form of precipitation is lost due to orographic uplift, as the weather systems moving eastward are lifted over the Appalachian Mountain Chain. A secondary flow pattern and primary I source of heavy precipitation associated with cyclonic circulation forms from the Gulf of Mexico northward through the County. I The moist air flow from the Atlantic Ocean, to the east, is a modifying rather than a controlling climatic factor. A considerable amount of moisture is periodically picked up by storms developing and moving up along the southeastern coastline of the I United States. Disturbances of this type usually bring moderate to heavy precipitation to the Lower Susquehanna River area due to the general up slope motion of moist air over the area’s rugged I terrain. In the colder months when temperatures are near or below freezing, these storms often deposit heavy amounts of wet snow throughout the area. The Great Lakes, a source of moisture, have little or no influence on the climate of the study area since the I weather systems formed over the Great Lakes migrate northward. The normal succession of high and low pressure systems moving I eastward across the United States produce weather changes in the area every few days in the winter and spring of the year. In the summer and fall, the weather changes are less frequent due to a I slowing down of the general atmospheric circulation during the warmer months. Low pressure cyclonic systems usually dominate the area with southerly winds, rising temperatures, and some form of precipitation. The high pressure anticyclonic systems normally I bring west to northwest winds, lowering temperatures, and clearing skies to the area. I Hurricanes or tropical disturbances as they move northward, follow a northeasterly path in the middle latitudes and produce heavy rainfalls and strong surface winds in the study area. I 3-1 I Frequently affecting water supplies and causing floods, these tropical storms are observed during the hurricane season, June through November. Weather elements or activities of the atmosphere, such as precipitation, temperature, wind direction and speed, relative humidity, and sunshine are measurable quantities which affect the study area. The study area normally receives about 46 inches of precipitation annually. Normal monthly precipitation totals average from a minimum of 2.6 inches in February to a maximum of 4.3 inches in August. Snowfall is light to moderate averaging about 30 inches annually, while the mean annual number of days with snow cover of one inch or more is about 50 days. Air temperatures are important to the management of water resources and water quality. The average annual temperature for the study area is about 50 degrees F. The mean freeze-free period is about 175 days. Because of the rugged terrain, the freeze-free season varies between 170 days in the mountains to 180 days in the lowlands. In the study area, the summer mean is about 76 degrees F, and the winter mean about 32 degrees F. Winds are important hydrologic factors because of their evaporative effects and their association with major storm systems. The prevailing wind directions in the area are from the northwest in winter and from the west in spring. The average wind speed is 10 mph, with an extreme wind speed of 68 mph from the west- northwest reported in the Lower Susquehanna area during severe storm activity in March of 1955. Relative humidity also affects evaporation processes. The mean monthly relative humidities for the months of January, April, July, and October are about 68 percent, 62 percent, 70 percent, and 75 percent, respectively. Sunshine, which varies with latitude and time of the year, is a factor to be considered in the various aspects of water resources. The mean annual sunshine in hours per year for the study area is about 2,500 hours. The evaporation process is ,controlled by temperature, wind, sunshine, and humidity. The rate of evaporation during the warmer months has an important impact on water storage in reservoirs and on irrigation. The mean May to October evaporation accounts for about 72 percent of the total annual evaporation. Development in the county should take some of the climatic conditions into consideration. Tree lines and high ground should be on the northwest side of buildings to take advantage of the microclimates of a tract of land. By breaking the velocity of the northwest winds, energy conservation can be realized by reducing the temperature slightly. To take advantage of the sun for passive or active solar systems, building should have south facing walls. 3 -2 I

Although the climate will not have a major effect on land uses, it 1 should be considered in the layout of buildings for purposes of energy consumption. I HYDROLOGY Effective management of available water resources can be a complex procedure, but it is essential that each community I inventory and monitor the quality and quantity of the available water supply and implement programs aimed at the protection of the health, safety and welfare of its residents. Management of water I resources revolves around the knowledge of four principal components of hydrology - surface water, groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands. Understanding these elements will assist in the formulation of better land use practices and help the community I provide adequate water services for residents and offer safeguards against extensive damage resulting from floods. I Water resource management policies may follow one of several approaches. One common strategy focuses on the management of watersheds. Watersheds, defined as the areas of contribution or drainage to a particular watercourse, are portions of larger 8 regions called subbasins, which drain large expanses of land. In the early 1970's the Bureau of Resources Programming of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources developed a I water management program to address "new water uses. . .water problems associated with water supply, recreation, flood control, and the disposal of wastes.. .and to guide the conservation, I development, and administration of the Commonwealth's water and related land resources. The program divided the state into twenty study areas called I sub-basins. Dauphin County is located within two of these subbasins; the area north of Peters Mountain is included in the Lower Central Susquehanna River Sub-basin (Sub-basin 6), and the region I south of Peters Mountain is incorporated in the Lower Susquehanna River Sub-basin (Sub-basin 7). Sub-basin 6 is primarily drained by Mahantango Creek, 1 Wiconisco Creek, Armstrong Creek, and Powell Creek, which all possess their individual watershed tracts. The Swatara Creek, Clark Creek, Stoney Creek, Fishing Creek, Paxton Creek, Spring I Creek, Laurel Run, and Conewago Creek comprise the drainage area and watershed districts within Sub-basin 7. All of these creeks drain westward or southwestward and eventually flow into the I Susquehanna River. Map 3-1 illustrates each of these watersheds.

I l"State Water Plan: Planning Principles" (Swp-l), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources I Management, Bureau of Resources Programming, March 1975.

I 3-3 I I Another water resource management tool utilized by local agencies is a water quality management program. Focusing on I wastewater collection and treatment and on actions that could potentially create any problems with the water quality, these programs address more specific issues than the 5road goals and objectives of the watershed management programs. I Surface water, groundwater, floodplains and wetlands are all affected by the supply and flow of water. After precipitation I falls to the earth‘s surface it is pulled by gravity and distributed in one of several methods. The water that is not evaporated back into the atmosphere may infiltrate the ground and journey down through the layers of soil and bedrock. Water that I reaches an impervious surface and cannot penetrate the ground flows along the surface as runoff. I Surface Water The Susquehanna River and the existing network of streams and 1 their tributaries existing in Dauphin County provide an abundant supply of surface water which is used for consumption, recreation, transportation, and numerous other purposes. It is imperative that this supply of water remain free of pollution because surface I water can eventually penetrate the ground and reach the water table and aquifers located in the ’ earth’s surface, and eventually the supply of water used for consumption. 1 Communities that are utilizing land planning practices should examine the various characteristics of surface water runoff. Current land use patterns, development, geology, physiography and I slopes can all affect the flow patterns of surface water travelling through the watersheds. As additional development occurs and more impervious surfaces are created, the natural drainage patterns are I decreased and the water runoff increases or carves new drainage patterns. I The topography, or physical land features, of Dauphin County determines the drainage patterns and surface flow attributes. Steeper slopes cause increased runoff and erosion and discourage infiltration to the water table. Groundwater flow directions are I controlled in part by the topography. The storage, transmission, and utilization of groundwater is 1 ultimately controlled by the composition of the bedrock geology. Geologic factors such as rock type, intergranual spacing, rock strata inclination, faults, joints, folds, bedding planes, and solution channels have an impact on groundwater movement and I availability. Natural groundwater quality is a result of interaction between the groundwater and the bedrock with which it is in contact. The more soluble bedrock types will allow more I compounds to become dissolved in the groundwater. Groundwater in highly soluble limestone aquifers will commonly have high hardness values. Surface water quality will ultimately be affected by I groundwater quality as it percolates into surface streams as base flow.

3-4 I I The County is located within two physiographic provinces - the Ridge and Valley Province located north of Blue Mountain. Rock types in the ridge section are quartzites, sandstones, and conglomerates. Most of the sandstones, conglomerates, and quartzites are tightly cemented, and in-general, their primary porosity is quite low. These rocks are firm and brittle, and despite their tightly cemented and low primary porosity characteristics, numerous joints have developed. The number and size of joint openings typically decrease with depth. Jointing is the most important factor in groundwater production among quartzites. A major portion of the Valley Province is composed of shales. The shale provides about half of the wells of the valleys with an adequate amount of groundwater for domestic needs. The pore spaces in these shales are generally quite small. Fortunately, however, the shale is broken by joints and it is these joints, as well as spaces between bedding planes, that allow for some water movement. In hard, brittle shale, joints are more open and tend to have somewhat greater yields. The southern section of the County is primarily composed of limestone and dolomites. When dolomites or limestones occur at the surface or in the subsurface, sinkholes may develop from solution opening cave-ins. Surface drainage passes directly into the groundwater system an increases the chance for groundwater pollution. Flood Plains Flood plains, defined as low lying, flat areas adjacent to streams, are susceptible to frequent, periodic flooding. During rainy periods they assist in drainage and buffer the stream from harmful impacts of adjacent land uses. Flood plains should be protected to prevent unnecessary property damage and risk of injury during floods, to provide adequate drainage to sustain excess water during periods of heavy rainfall, to allow for groundwater absorption for recharge of subsurface water, and to maintain a safe water supply. In recent years it has become particularly crucial that flood plains be clearly delineated and preserved from development and other activities that may disturb the natural balance of the water supply. The Federal Emergency Management Agency utilizes the one percent annual chance flood or the 100 year flood as the criteria for its flood plain management and adopted a national standard to avoid any discrimination in delineating flood plains and their floodway and' flood fringe tracts. Map 3-2 illustrates each of the creeks and their respective flood plain zone. Each drains into the extensive flood plain encompassing the Susquehanna River. Municipalities and townships bordering the Susquehanna River closely observe the level of river, particularly during times of heavy rainfall. National cameras focused on the banks of this region in June of 1972 when fifteen inches of rain descended on Dauphin County in two days in the wake of Hurricane Agnes, causing the river to crest sixteen feet above 3-5 MAP 3-1 dAHANTAFGO CREEK W/4T ER st CONISCO CREEK AU PtilN C PE NP \IS\,'L1 19:32 ARK C:f :E

ARM STF

P OWE:LL t

EEK

RUN

4 CREE :K

REEK FLOODPLAINS

MAP 3-2 FLOOD PLAINS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PEN N SY LVAN 1 A 1990 I' the flood level. Shortly after this historical flood, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Pennsylvania Flood Plain Management Act were enacted and the regulations contained in them have been I important to development in this region ever since that time.

The numerous creeks that have chiseled their paths through the I , mountains in the northern half of the county, Mahantango Creek, Wiconisco Creek, Armstrong Creek, Clark Creek, Powell Creek, Stony Creek, and Fishing Creek all possess their own designated flood I plains. The flood plains in the southern portion of the county are more extensive; the Conewago Creek, Swatara Creek, Spring Creek, and Laurel Run may flood a more extensive region than in the northern section due to the level topography. Flood plain I management programs are critical in these regions because much of the county's population resides in this section of the county. I Wet lands

Wetlands, another vital element in the hydrologic cycle, has gained much attention in the last few years as people are I recognizing their qualities as a valuable resource that requires protection. Wetlands are defined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as lands transitional between terrestrial and I aquatic systems where the water table is at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. These areas many times associated with largest bodies of water such as lakes and streams, I have been delineated on the national Wetland Inventory Maps by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These maps highlight many wetlands that have been documented when published, however the number of wetlands beyond these can be extensive, dependant upon I the area. Though they are often overlooked and ignored, wetlands provide a wide variety of important functions in the environment for man. Their existence helps to ensure food and natural habitat I for an assortment of wildlife. They create safe areas for migrating and nesting birds, as well as wintering areas for migrating and stationary water fowl. Wetlands naturally form breeding, spawning and feeding grounds, and provide natural cover I for nursery areas for fish. Non-tidal wetlands are the primary form of wetlands found throughout Dauphin County. The western border of the county is a wetland in its entirety, either a I Palistrine or Riverine ecosystem. These are formed in the Susquehanna River basin, including its shores and islands. The additional streams throughout the County will also meet the I criterion for being noted wetlands. Small pockets of hydric soil and low lying areas also will add to the number of wetlands throughout the County and each should be investigated when any potential impact is forthcoming. The United States Army Corps of 1 Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources should all be contacted when 1 making a determination on certain tracts of land. In conclusion, Dauphin County should strive to to prevent negative impacts to wetlands from groundwater extraction, agriculture drainage, filling I for housing, and from harmful discharge of sewage.

3-6 I I SLOPES - TOPOGRAPHY I The topography and slope of the land are important factors in determining suitable locations for development, the gradient of roads, and various land uses. The terrain is influenced by the rock types and their characteristics. Stable conditions in the I land are achieved by erosional forces which effect the natural gradient of the land, giving it a flat, steep or rolling quality. Map 3-3 illustrates the slopes in Dauphin County. The category of I 15 to 24.9 percent displays the location of the lower, rolling hills. Areas designated as 25% and higher outline the mountainous areas. Restrictions for development are often placed on land with I the slopes above twenty-five percent. Topography has influenced settlement trends in Dauphin County. In the northern half, the early settlers chose to settle in the I flatter valley areas. The steep slopes of the mountains have always presented physical barriers to development. Towns such as Millersburg, Elizabethville, Gratz, Berrysburg, Lykens, Halifax, I and Williamstown evolved in the flatter, more accessible stretches of land. The gradual slopes and topography of the southern portion of the County has made the development process much easier and has added to the competition for use of this land. Areas containing I slopes under fifteen percent are attractive to residential use as well as agricultural operations, which are also more productive in I these areas which often contain fertile soils. When discussing the slope of the land, it is important to keep in mind that the natural gradients are created by erosional forces trying to establish a stable condition. Sometimes when man alters I these slopes in road building or other construction, he upsets the balance which results in landslides, rock falls, mudslides, and I soil creep as nature tries to restore the equilibrium. GEOLOGY I Intelligently planned growth and development can be assisted by a comprehensive investigation of the geology and engineering qualities of the existing bedrock in an area. When planning to construct a highway, apartment building, bridge, industrial park, I or even a dam, it is essential complete a lithology, or description of the composition of the rocks. The Office of Resource Management of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental I Resources publishes a detailed report which analyzes engineering characteristics of rock formations in Pennsylvania. Included in this narrative are rock attributes such as bedding, fracturing, weathering, topography, porosity, permeability, cut-slope I stability, foundation stability, drainage, groundwater, ease of excavation and source of construction materials. I The geologic era and period the rocks in Dauphin County were formed influence the type of rock formed and the engineering qualities of these rocks. Many of the rocks underlying the County I were formed during five periods of the Paleozoic Era - the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian Periods. The remaining rocks originated in the Triassic Period of

I 3-7 0% - 14%

15% to 24%

25% and over

MAP 3-3 SLOPES DAUPHIN COUP4TY, PEN N SYLVAN IA 1990 I I the Mesozoic Era. The oldest rocks underlying the County, from the Ordovician Period, are limestones, shales, sandstones, and siltstones settled and formed stratified layers following the recession of the waters I of the Appalachian Gulf, which affected by bedrock geology. These layers of sedimentary rocks accumulated throughout this Period and into the Silurian and Lower Devonian Periods. Increased geologic activity caused these layers to fold, fault, and horizontally compress, eventually forming mountain building events, or orogenies. Course, sandy sediments loosened from these mountains 1 and accumulated at the bases, forming ridges. Shallow seas once again engulfed the area during the Missippian Period, leaving additional layers of limestone deposits. The next geologic period, the Pennsylvanian, was characterized by swampy areas which created 1 large tiers of coal deposits. The Ordivician Period is represented by nine types of I formations in Dauphin County. These rocks, located between Blue Mountain and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, appear in linear shaped arrangements running east and west across the County. The following is a more detailed description of the existing Ordovician aged 1 rocks in the County. The geology of an area must be considered in land use 1 planning, as the ultimate or best use of land is initially determined by the characteristics and quality, on-lot sewage disposal, drainage, and construction cost are some of the factors affected by bedrock geology. The rock types found in Dauphin I County generally do not present specific inherent limitations. For example, the porosity of the limestone formations could contribute to the rapid spread of groundwater contaminants. In some cases, on-site evaluation of geologic factors may be necessary to determine the feasibility and impacts of a proposed project. The engineering aspects of the bedrock geology is also important. These characteristics give an indication of such things as ease of excavation, cut-slope stability, and foundation stability. Generally, the rock formations in the County provide strength and support for heavy structures such as dams, highways, bridges, and large buildings. Those areas which are underlain by limestone and dolomites, however create problems for foundation engineering. Cavernous areas and areas known to be susceptible to sinkholes should be investigated thoroughly before construction of heavy structures. It is important to recognize that most of these problems would be site specific and require an on-site evaluation to determine the appropriateness of a project. Martinsburg Formation: Contains gray or dark gray easily weathered shale which has good surface drainage and low permeability. The rolling, shaly hills are suitable for real estate development, road materials, and fill. Deposits are located at the base of Blue Mountain.

3-8 I

Hamburg Sequence: The three types of rocks in this sequence are the most common Ordovician rocks in Dauphin County. They I are gray, greenish, or maroon shales, dark gray sandstones, and light gray crystalline and shaly limestones occurring especially along Nyes Road in Lower Paxton Township. These I rocks produce small fragments when weathered, have a high porosity and permeability rate, and can easily be used for fill or as road materials. I Chambersburg Formation: Rocks of this type are dark gray limestones and exist along the Susquehanna River close to City Island. This moderately resistant rock possesses good surface I drainage and low permeability. Pinesburg Station Formation: These light to medium gray dolomites have interbeds of medium gray limestone and occur in I a layer extending east to west directly south of City Island and Paxtang Borough. 'This medium resistant, low permeable rock is suitable for road materials, building stone, I embankment facing and fill. St. Paul Group: This category of moderately resistant limestone underlies the southern portions of Harrisburg and I Swatara Township. These rocks have a high level of permeability and poor surface drainage. I Hershey Formation: These rocks are located under the surface of parts of Lower Swatara Township, Swatara Township, and Derry Township. These dark gray to black limestones and basal I conglomerates containing angular boulders of dolomite are moderately resistant with good surface drainage and low permeability. I Annville Formation: Rocks of this type are light gray limestones with a high content of calcium. They have low permeability and poor surface drainage, but have good I subsurface drainage. Sinkholes are common in this formation, which presents itself in parts of Derry Township, Lower Swatara Township, and in the Borough of Highspire along the Susquehanna River. I Ontelaunee Formation: Utilized in building stone, road materials and riprap, these rocks have a high permeability and 1 minor surface drainage. These light to dark gray, fine to medium crystaline dolomites underlie portions of Derry Township, South Hanover Township, Swatara Township, Lower I Swatara Township, and Hummelstown Borough in flat rolling valleys of low relief. Stonehenge Formation: These gray, finely crystalline and dark I gray laminated limestones are slightly weathered to a shallow depth, have good subsurface drainage, high permeability and frequent sinkholes. They may be used for building stone, I riprap, and flagstone and exist in sections of Derry Township. I 3-9 I I Epler Formation: Extending through much of Derry Township, I parts of Swatara Township and the Boroughs of Hummelstown and Highspire, these medium gray finely crystalline limestones are interbed with gray dolomites. Caves and sinkholes occur frequent in this area of good subsurface drainage and low I permeability. These rocks are acceptable for road materials, embankment facing, flagstone, riprap and fill. 1 The next geological group of bedrock represented in Dauphin County belongs to the Silurian time period. The three rock formations of this age located in Dauphin County are located in I lateral strips extending east to west through East Hanover, West Hanover, Middle Paxton and Susquehanna Townships. The Bloomsburg Formation is primarily composed of siltstones and red shales with some green shales, sandstones and limestones. These regions have I adequate surface drainage, moderate permeability, and the rocks may be used in road materials, fill, and as a raw material for common I brick. The Clinton Group contains light to dark gray fossiliferous sandstones, oolitic shales and sandstones, and light olive-gray to brownish gray shale with limestones and iron sandstones. Low I permeability and good surface drainage are qualities of these rocks which may be used in road materials and fill. The Tuscarora Formation is the final representative of the Silurian Period. I These rocks are fine to coarse grained white, red, and green firmly cemented sandstones and quartzites. They are highly resistant, low permeable rocks that are found in mountain and ridge areas. Rocks I from this grouping are utilized as silica for refractory bricks, embankment facing, road materials, riprap, and building stone. Chronologically, the Devonian Period follows the Silurian I Period: in Dauphin County five categories of rock formations and their members are exposed in three primary regions. One area of Devonian-aged rocks extend in an east to west lateral pattern I directly north of the Silurian Period rock formations, one tract reaches from the Susquehanna River to the townships listed below, along with a brief outline of their engineering characteristics. I Catskill Formation - Sherman Creek Member Interbedded grayish-red silty mudstone, sandy siltstone, and reddish-gray fine to medium grained, silty, micaceous I sandstones with a moderate resistance. They have good surface drainage, moderate permeability, and can be employed in road materials an'd random fill. I Catskill Formation - Duncannon Member Interbedded red and gray sandstone, red siltstone, and red mudstone, in hills and ridges of moderate to high relief and I lower slopes of mountains. Good surface drainage, low perm, moderate secondary porosity, good for rock fill and riprap. I Spechty Kopf Formation These fine to medium grained, light to olive gray, sandstone, I 3-10 I I with interbeds of olive-gray to dark gray shale and siltstone may contain minor thin coal and coalified plant fragments. I They can be highly resistant, possess good surface drainage, moderate to low secondary porosity, moderate permeability, and are quarried for crushed stone and aggregate utilized in road I construction, riprap, rock protection, and rock fill. Pocono Formation Serving as a good source of material for embankment facing, I riprap, road materials, and building stone, these light to olive gray, fine to medium grained sandstones, siltstones, and conglomerates are highly resistant and can break into large I blocks. Their surface drainage is adequate and can be used for building stone, riprap, embankment facing, and road material. I Mauch Chunk Formation This formation consists of shale, claystone, sandstone, and siltstone; the sandstone is fine to medium grained and I crossbedded. The shales and claystones are red, the sandstones and siltstones are gray, green, and greenish gray. They are moderately resistant, maintain good surface drainage, low to moderate porosity and moderate to low permeability, and I may be used for road material and fill. In addition, the shale is a good raw material for brick. I Llewellyn Formation Interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate are common in these medium to coarse grained, light gray to brown rocks I which contain coal and dark-gray to black shales. They have good surface drainage, moderate porosity, moderate to low permeability, and are a good source of road material and fill. The conglomerate is suitable for building stone, flagstone, I embankment facing and riprap. Catskill Formation - Clarks Ferry Member I These are typically grayish-purple and light gray to olive gray, and are medium to coarse grained conglomerate sandstones with thin interbeds of dark gray shaly claystone. I Moderately weathered, they provide good surface drainage, moderate permeability, and can be used for random and rock fill and rock protection. The sandst-onehas been I used as decorative building stone. Pottsville Group I Light to dark gray, fine grained to coarsely conglomerate sandstone, gray shale, siltstone, limestone, coal and underclay are characteristic. They form crests, flanks of ridges, and other breaks in topography. They have moderate to I low permeability, moderate effective porosity in sandstone, and low effective porosity in other rock types. They can be used for refractory clay, road material and fill, building I stone, riprap, and embankment facing. I 3-11 I LEGEND

DCcf - CtARKS FERRY MEMBER

Dcd - DUNCANNON MEMBER f DClv - IRISH VALLEY MEMBER

DCSC - SHERMAN CREEK MEMBER

Dh - HAMILTON GROUP

DO0 - ONONDAGA dr OLD PORT FORU

Dtr - TRIMMERS ROCK FORMATION

MDsk - SPECHTY KOPF FORMATION

Mmc - MAUCH CHUNK FORMATION

Mp - POCONO FORMATION

Om - MARTINSBURG FORMATION

PI - LLEWELLYN FORMATION

Pp - POllSVILLE CROUP MAP 3-4a) \ Sb - BLOOMSBURC FORMATION GENERAL GEOLOGY- SC - ROSE HILL FORMATION UPPER DAUPHIN COUNTY, St - TUSCARORA FORMATION PENN SY LVAN IA 1990 L.EGEND Cbs - BUFFALO SPRINGS FORM.

Oon - ANNVILLE FORMATION

oc - CHAMBERSBURG FORMATION

- HAMBURG SEQUENCE

- HERSHEY & MYERSTOWN FORM.

- MARTINSBURG FORMATION

- NITTANY FORMATION

- ONTELAUNE FORMATION

- PINESBURC STATION FORM.

Or - REEDSVILLE FORMATION

OS '- STONEHENCE FORMATION

- ST. PAUL GROUP MAP 3-5 OSP Trd - DIABASE

GENERAL GEOLOGY TRfl - GETWSBURG FORMATION

LOWER DAUPHIN COUNTY, Trg - CEWSBURG FORMATION

PENN SY LVANIA TRgcI - CE17YSBURC FORMATION 1990 TRhc - HAMMER CREEK FORMATION LEGEND

DEW-LEHEW

CALVIN-LECK KIU-KUNESVILLE

LAIDIG-BUCHANAN-ANDOVER

I 1 EERKS-BEDINGTON-WEIKERT

HAGERSTOWN-DUFflEU)

LEWISBERRY-PEHN-ATHOL

BRECKNOCK-NESWIW

DUCANNON-CHAVIES-TIOGA

MAP 3-6 GENERAL SOIL MAP DAU P H IN C 0 U NTY, PEN N SY LVANI A 1990 llME AGRICULTURAL LANDS

MAP 3-7 SU ITABILlTY FOR AGRl CULTU RE DAUPHIN COUNTY, P ENN SYLVANI A 1990 WOODLANDS I The awareness of the land capabilities and the geology of an area must be included in land use planning, as the ultimate or best I use of land is initially determined by the quality and these characteristics, on-lot sewage disposal, drainage and construction costs. Dauphin County's geology has occasionally presented some specific inherent limitations. For instance, the porosity of the I limestone formations could contribute to the rapid spread of groundwater contaminants, and sometimes an on-site evaluation of rock types may be necessary to calculate the feasibility and I impacts of a proposed project. Engineering aspects of the bedrock geology are also important to projects. Qualities of these rocks provide clues about critical I elements such as foundation stability, ease of excavation, and cut- slope stability. Rock formations in Dauphin County yield strength and support for heavy structures such as dams, highways, bridges, I and large buildings. However, areas underlain by limestone and dolomites, which are located in southern Dauphin County, present problems to foundation engineering. Cavernous areas and areas I known to be susceptible to sinkholes should be investigated thoroughly before construction of heavy structures. It is important to recognize that most of these problems would be site specific and require an on-site evaluation to determine the 1 appropriateness of a project. Map 3-4 graphically illustrates the geology for the upper I section of the County and Map 3-5 shows the lower portion of Dauphin County. 1

Soils, the weathered, three dimensional material covering from sixteen to sixty inches of the earth, is a product of the geology I or parent material (the rocks beneath), topography or degree of slope steepness), temperature, moisture conditions, vegetation. Any changes in any of these elements can cause alterations in the I soil type. Soil formation and soil erosion are continuing actions, the latter of which has been greatly accelerated by man's misuse of the land. I Soils have many properties by which they are identified. A knowledge of these properties is essential in determining land use policy. Some soils are deep and well drained making them suitable I to most, if not all, types of urban or agriculture uses. However, shallow and poorly drained soils have definite use limitations. Although these soils may be altered by applying various engineering practices to the land, this is always a costly and frequently I unwarranted expenditure. In an effort to avoid such expenditures, engineers, planners and developers are using soil maps more frequently as a basis for land use decisions and planning. I I

3-12 I I I

Soil profiles display natural horizontal layers of soils from I the surface layer down through the various subsoil levels and to the parent material and rock layers. This vertical analysis of the existing soils often reflects the landscape of the land. The I characteristics ascertained from these profiles are documented in a detailed soil survey of Dauphin County which classifies the soils according to depth, texture (coarseness or fineness), natural drainage, thickness, and arrangement of the various layers, kind of I parent material, slope, erosion, flooding, and other characteristics. Soils have their own unique properties which are influenced by their composition, and they frequently occur together 1 in the landscape, so a small scale map can be produced to present this information. I Soil associations are classifications that recognize the unique proportional soil designs of a landscape. These associations are comprised of dominant, or major soils and minor soils. The same combination of soils may appear in several soils I associations, but the pattern will be different. Dauphin County’s predominant soil associations are documented in the Soil Survey of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, published in February 1972. The following is the list of the soil associations occurring in Dauphin I County. The soils are named in order of their importance in the association, and following each soil name is a brief explanation I describing the extent of the soil in the association. BERKS-WEIKERT-BEDINGTON Association: Shallow to deep,gently sloping to very steep, well drained soils that formed in I material weathered from gray and brown shale, siltstone, and sandstone; on uplands. HAGERSTOWN-DUFFIELD Association: Deep, nearly level to I moderately steep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from limestone; on uplands. I HAZLETON-LAIDIG-BUCHANAN Association: Deep, nearly level to very steep, well drainedto somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from gray and brown quartzite, I sandstone, siltstone, and shale; on uplands. MONONGAHELA-ATKINS-MIDDLEBURY Association: Deep, nearly level and gently sloping, moderately well drained to poorly I 3-13 drained soils that formed in alluvium; on terraces and flood I plains. MURRILL-LAIDIG-BUCHANAN Association: Deep, nearly level to moderately steep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in colluvium from gray sandstone, I conglomerate, quartzite, and limestone, on uplands. ELLIBER-FREAMER Association: Deep, gently sloping to very I steep, well drained and moderately well drained soils that formed in material weathered from cherty limestone; on uplands.

I 3-13 I I WEIKERT-CALVIN-BEMS Association: Shallow and moderately deep, gently sloping to very steep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from red, gray, and brown shale, I siltstone, and sandstone; on uplands.

Map 3-6 traces the outlines of these soils throughout Dauphin 1 County. Soil conditions are dynamic and can easily be affected by I development. For instance, agriculture has been important to Dauphin County's culture and economy, and agriculture is extremely dependent upon the quality of the soils. If these prime agricultural soils are taken out of production by development, they I cannot be replaced. As a result, development should focus on the marginally productive soils of the County in order to preserve prime farmland, which is an important and irreplaceable natural I resource within Dauphin County. The development of on-lot sewage systems, which often appear in areas of rural development, is another practice that affects soil conditions. Some soil types are known to pose severe limitations on development and major I construction projects. These limitations result from such factors as slow percolation rates for on-lot sewage disposal, shallow depth to bedrock, and erodibility. 1 WOODLANDS I Dauphin County is fortunate to possess several parks and state game lands which preserve the natural forests, which have been constantly yielding to development throughout the decades. Approximately 8,030 acres of forest are located in Weiser State I Forest (known as the Haldeman and Greenland tracts) and 46, 052 acres of wooded areas are located in State Game Lands #210, 211, 246, 254, 258, 264, 275, and 290. Map 3-8 shows the location of I Dauphin County's woodlands, which predominantly cover the mountainous areas in the central and east central parts of the county. Woodland areas are also scattered throughout the southern portion and along the norther border of the County. I

The most common variety of forest cover is mixed oak-hickory stands consisting mainly of white oak, red oak, hickory, black oak, I and chestnut oak. Other species to be found include yellow poplar, shagbark hickory, white ash, red maple, beech, elm, birch, sycamore, hemlock, white pine, and Virginia pine. I Forests maintain a balance with the water resources in both protective and a depletive manner. They offer protection from floods and erosion, while at the same time gradually deplete the I stream flows. The latter occurs primarily during the growing season. Covered with litter (leaves and twigs), the forest floor acts as a protective layer to the soil and reduces the possibility I of sheet erosion caused by raindrop splash and impact on soil. Also, the litter decays and becomes humus, which helps to form a highly permeable layer of soil, in which infiltration rates usually I exceed rainfall intensities. This retards runoff from heavy rainfall, thus reducing downstream flood peaks. When the forest

3-14 I I I

floor becomes agitated, particularly through activities associated I with constructing roads and buildings, the potential for erosion is augmented. Soil loss then becomes a function of soil erodibility, as well as, the length and steepness of slopes. The wooded areas I on steep slopes and along streams should be preserved to prevent erosion and reduce flooding. I WILDLIFE Dauphin County's woodlands, streams, wetlands, and even backyards support a numerous array of wildlife such as small 1 mammals, non-game species of birds, amphibians, fish, and reptiles. Hunting is a popular sport because of the ample supply of white- tailed deer, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, turkey, grouse, ring-neck pheasant, woodcock, morning dove, and various waterfowl 1 that abide in the wooded areas of the state game lands and along the flood plains of the numerous creeks. There are also red and gray fox, mink, muskrat, raccoon, weasel, opossum, and beaver I living throughout the County. Development in the County is limiting the areas in which many of these species can exist. To preserve the habitat for these I species a conservation district and proper game management are of the utmost importance. This will ensure that the species will have I sufficient space to cohabit with man in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONS I In reviewing the assorted individual elements of the natural environment of Dauphin County, the elements were analyzed in conjunction with each other. By grouping several elements, four groups were created which have a limiting effect on the I environment : Group 1: Those areas with slopes in excess of 15 percent, and I covered by woodlands. These areas should have restrictions on construction and only be considered for low density residential development. I Group 2: Those areas which possess flood plains where development is already restricted through the Federal Flood Plain Insurance I Program. Group 3: Those areas with slopes in excess of 15 percent, where the soils show homesite locations with severe limitations and I excavation problems due to the geology. This area should have severe limitations on any building construction. Group 4: Areas with soil and geology limitations on construction. I Only low densities should be considered for those areas. I I 3-15 I I I CHAPTER 4 POPULATION/SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE I An analysis of the characteristics of Dauphin County's population is vital to understanding and planning for the needs of its residents. Past trends, present profiles, and future projections of population data provides a very complete picture of I the past, present, and future composition of a community. Not only is it a tool for monitoring the population composition, but for making planning decisions that will affect the future development 1 of the community. An analysis of population projections often uncovers future needs that are not made evident by other indicators. I An important part of any Comprehensive Plan is an in-depth population analysis appropriate to that region. The amount and type of population being served, directly dictates the land use I scenarios required by residential, commercial, and industrial development. Future population fluctuations will also directly determine the size and number of public facilities needed such as schools, parks, and playgrounds. If those who make the decisions 1 that guide future development are adequately informed of population profiles and trends, they will be able to make more effective plans and help create a more suitable environment for future residents of I Dauphin County. At the County level, the Comprehensive Plan provides a larger perspective on population trends which local municipalities can use when preparing and updating their 1 Comprehensive Plans. GEOGRAPHY OF POPULATION 1 In most localities, the topography has an influence on the spatial distribution of the population. Dauphin County exhibits a variety of topographic relief, from rugged mountainous areas to the 1 valley of the broad Susquehanna River. The distribution of the population naturally followed these geographic features. For example, the area that became the City of Harrisburg was the best fording place along the Susquehanna, a natural connecting place 1 between north and south, east and west. 1 NATIONAL TRENDS When the 1930 Census was taken, our nation was entering the Great Depression era of the 1930's (see Table 4-1). The economic 1 hardship of the Depression had a significant impact on population growth by forcing young adults to postpone marriage and family plans. The subsequent decline in the birth rate (18.4 births per 1,000 population in 1933) netted a relatively low population I increase of 7.2 percent for the decade. The 1940 Census revealed that the average United States household size had dropped to 3.70 persons per household, a considerable difference from the 1930 I average of 4.11 persons per household. In the 1940's the nation was to undergo more hardship as it went to war.

I 4-1 I I

Despite bolstering the economy, the war had a negative impact on population growth, as the formation of new households was delayed I and family plans were again postponed. When the war ended, however, these family plans were put into high gear and the postwar "baby boom" began. The sudden increase in the birth rate, reported at 26.6 births per 1,000 population in 1947, contributed to a 14.4 I percent increase in population by 1950. With a strengthened economy, this growth was to continue into I the 1950's. The birth rate remained at about 24 per 1,000 population until 1959, resulting in an increase in population from 1950 to 1960 of 19.0 percent. The 1960 Census also showed an I increase in household formation and redistribution of the population. However, the household size declined to 3.38 persons per household. Seeking the best employment opportunities, young couples had begun to migrate away from rural areas toward the I cities. No longer plagued by war or depression, these young couples, who had previously been forced to live with parents or others, sought their own homes. Housing opportunities in the I cities were generally not attractive to this group, and land for new housing was not available within the existing boundaries of the urban area. The lthousingboom" that resulted saw developers constructing single-family detached homes on previously undeveloped I land which lay in close proximity to the urban centers. In this manner, the boundaries of urbanized areas were expanded and the suburbs were born. I During the 1960's we saw continued growth, but at a reduced rate. The 1970 Census reported a 13.3 percent population increase I for this period, despite a constant decline in the birth rate. In 1960, the birth rate was 18.2 births per 1,000 population, the lowest since the Depression. In 1964, a typical household included 3.33 people, of which 2.10 were adults and 1.23 were under the age I of 18. The postwar "baby boom" had run its course in the early 1960's and in the latter part of the decade a smaller family pattern began to appear. Population experts theorize that the I number of children both desired and actually born declined due to a lower infant mortality rate, diminishing economic value of children, upward spiraling costs of raising children in a post industrial, urbanized society, and improved methods of birth I control. The U. S. population increase from 1970 to 1980 dropped to a I level of 11.4 percent. The birth rate has continued to decline in the 1970's. In 1972, the birth rate was reported at 15.6 births per 1,000 population. The reasons are varied, but the most I significant appear to be the'new thinking in family planning and the changing role of women in our society. As the level of education of women increases and as employment opportunities improve, attractiveness of work is beginning to compete with I childbearing. Despite the decline in the birth rate, population growth in the United States is expected to continue, and perhaps at a significant rate. The postwar "baby boom" generation has reached I the age of household formation, adding significantly to the number of couples at childbearing age. Our future population growth 4 -2 I 8 I

depends, therefore, to a great extent on the number of children I this generation chooses to bear. More people, both young and elderly, are living alone. In addition to couples having fewer children, the increase in number of non-family households and I single-parent families has led to even smaller households. The 1970 U.S. Census revealed that there were 3.18 persons per household, while the 1980 Census reported an average of 2.76 1 persons per household. The nation’s work force is swelling dramatically due to a higher percentage of women working outside the home and the baby I boomers still enteringthe job market. An increasing percentage of this work force is employed and also lives in the suburbs. Growth in housing persists due to the continuing increase in households and decrease in household size. The extra pressure means that new I houses are being built further away from the region’s center, in rural rather than suburban areas. The convenience of automobiles causes a continuing acceptance of increased commuting distance by I workers, however, the direction has changed. Most workers now travel from suburb to suburb, instead of from suburb to city. The end result is a more sprawling metropolitan area of lower overall I density. Population experts are beginning to speak of population stabilization rather than growth. A stabilized population exists I when the number of births equals the number of deaths, and the net migration is equal to zero. The consensus on population growth is that a continuation will not provide any significant benefits to I the nation. In fact, some demographers feel that population stabilization is a key factor in solving many of the nation’s problems. I These national population trends can be seen at all geographic and sociologic levels within the country. As communication improves and nationwide travel becomes quicker and more common, the I population trends and profiles become more homogeneous. Therefore, an understanding of national patterns can explain present conditions and provide a basis for future projections in Dauphin I County. STATE AND REGIONAL TRENDS I Population trends within the State and the Tri-County Region have been affected in many ways by these national trends. Pennsylvania is considered a part of the Northeastern Urban Complex I of the United States. Since 1920, this complex has grown at approximately the national rate. It has not experienced the rapid growth rates that have occurred in California, the Southwest, and Florida, whose growth patterns have been generated by significant I immigration. The Northeastern Urban Complex has shown some immigration, but its growth has been determined, rather, by a strong natural increase, a considerable surplus of births over I deaths.

I 4-3 I Pennsylvania's population was characterized by steady growth from 1940 to 1970, however, the rate was below the national level I for that period (See Table 4-1). The next decade showed signs of a possible population stabilization, as the growth rate fell to 0.6 percent. These fluctuations were similar to those of the Northeastern States, which experienced a stabilization in natural 1 growth rate and an outward migration of people to the t'Sunbeltt' states in the last decade. I The Tri-County Region, which forms the Harrisburg SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), has also shown steady growth during this period, but at more than twice the rate of the I state. The predominant reason for this regional growth has been an expanding and diversified economy. The three counties forming the region have experienced varying degrees of population growth. Cumberland County has shown a high rate of growth since 1940, I paralleling the State and national growth patterns, albeit at a higher rate. Perry County has experienced slow population growth since 1930 with the exception of a rapid increase (almost 25 I Percent) between the census years, 1970 - 1980, and 15.3 between the most recent census years, 1980 - 1990. Dauphin County has fluctuated from a strong pattern of growth in the 1940's and 1950's to a growth rate that was significantly reduced in the 1960's. By I 1980, the rate had recovered to 3.8 percent, but in 1990 a small downturn once again appeared with only a 2.37 percent increase. I The national trend of population movement from central cities to suburban areas and the resulting spread of suburban development into surrounding rural fringes, is evident in the Tri-County I Region. The declining population of Harrisburg City and the growth of the surrounding suburbs has resulted in a lower growth rate for Dauphin County and a higher growth rate for Cumberland County. However, in 1980 Cumberland's growth rate dropped to half that of 'I the previous decade. From 1970 to 1980 the population within the central city of the Harrisburg SMSA dropped 14.7 percent while the population outside of central city gained 16.1 percent. Similar I trends were present in all but two of the other SMSA's in Pennsylvania, during the same time period. The spread of development pressure to the more outlying areas is seen in Perry County's recent explosion of population growth. This growth I probably reflects the trend of preference for the rural lifestyle, as well as the appeal of the County's relatively low real estate values at the current time. I

TABLE 4-1 POPULATION TRENDS 1940-1990 FOR UNITED STATES, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE HARRISBURG SMSA 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

United States 131,669,275 150,697,361 179,323,175 203,211,926 226,445,805 248,709,873lggo I Pennsylvania 9,900,180 10,498,012 11,319,366 11,793,909 11,863,895 11,881,643 Harrisburg SMSA 275,429 317,023 371,653 410,505 447,660 587,986 Dauphin County 177,410 197,784 220,255 223,713 232,317 237,813 I Perry County 23,213 24,782 26,582 28,615 35,718 41,172 Cumberland County 74,806 94,457 124,816 158,177 179,625 195,257

4-4 I

TABLE 4-1 I PERCENT POPULATION GROWTH BETWEEN CENSUS YEARS, FROM 1930 By PERCENT

1930-1940 1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 I U.S. 7.2 14.4 19.0 13.32 11.43 9.83 Pennsylvania 2.8 6.0 7.8 4.2 0.6 0.14 Harrisburg SMSA 7.9 15.9 18.1 18.9 8.8 5.91 Dauphin County 7.3 11.4 11.3 1.6 3.8 2.37 1 Perry County 6.7 6.7 7.2 7.6 24.8 15.27 Cumberland County 9.6 26.1 32.1 26.7 13.6 8.70

I TABLE 4-2 POPULATION TRENDS 1810 - 1990 I DAUPHIN COUNTY Total I Year Population % Chanqe 1810 31,883 N/A 1820 21,653 -32.1* 1830 25,243 16.5 1 1840 30,118 19.3 1850 35,754 18.7 1860 46,756 30.8 I 1870 60,740 29.9 1880 76,148 25.4 1890 96,977 27.3 1900 114,443 18.3 1 1910 136,152 18.9 1920 153,116 12.4 1930 165,231 7.9 1 1940 177,410 7.3 1950 197,784 11.4 1960 220,255 11.3 1970 223,713 1.6 I 1980 232,317 3.8 1990 237,813 2.4 I * Dauphin County was reduced to its present limits by the separation and establishment of Lebanon County in 1813. I

I HISTORIC TRENDS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY Table 4-2 and Charts 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the historic population trends experienced by Dauphin County. Since the early I 1800's the County's population has steadily increased, with the exception of a loss between the 1810 and 1820 censuses. The decline was due to the separation and creation of Lebanon County I out of Dauphin County in 1813.

I 4-5 I I I

CHART 4 - 1 POPULATION TRENDS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1810 - 1990 I (Thousands) 1 1 I I

1810 1840 1870 1900 1930 1960 1990 I YEAR

- TOTAL POPULATION I SOURCE: TCRPC 1 CHART 4 - 2 DAUPHIN CO. POPULATION X INCREASE BETWEEN CENSUS YEARS 1820 - 1980 I % 121 I ......

...... ~ ...... I

...... I

...... I I

20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 80-70 70-80 80-90 YEAR . I SOURCE: TCRPC 0%lNCREASE I i 1 Growth during the County's initial settlement phase was mostly due to agricultural development. Natural population growth most I likely accounted for a major portion of this increase. During this period, families in rural America were quite large, since farming I was still very labor intensive. The beginning of industrialization in Dauphin County can be traced to approximately 1860, when what was to become the Pennsylvania Railroad was begun between Harrisburg and Lewistown, I utilizing steel from the steel mill begun in Steelton. Also in 1860, the incorporation of Harrisburg as a city took place. Designated as the seat of state government since 1812, the growth I of Harrisburg became a significant factor in the County's population growth. The expanding Harrisburg industrialized urban area began drawing people from the surrounding rural areas'seeking I its employment opportunities. At the turn of the 20th century, the coal mining industry was at its height, spurring population growth in many northern Dauphin I County municipalities. County-wide population growth slowed slightly but continued during the Depression years, implying that the rate of natural increase was greater than the out-migration from the urban areas due to the unavailability of jobs during that I time . As discussed in the State and Regional Trends section, the I Dauphin County population fluctuated from a strong growth pattern in the 1940's and 1950's (11.4 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively, see Chart 4-2), to a significantly reduced rate in I the 1960's (1.6 percent). This trend can be linked to the rise and decline of the central city of Harrisburg, during this time, although some of the city's out-migrants settled in the surrounding suburbs, still within the County. The County's population growth I rate picked up to 3.8 percent from 1970 - 1980. A greater population increase is predicted for the decade of the 1980's, a period of economic growth, low unemployment, and heightened I building construction (see page 4-35 for a discussion of estimated future population growth). 1 Table 4-3 illustrates population change by decade €or the 40 municipalities in Dauphin County from 1940 to 1990. These statistics illustrate several historical population trends, such as the decline of the steel (e.g. Steelton Borough) and coal I production areas (e.g. Northern Dauphin municipalities) and the urban to suburban movement. Even though the second half of the 1980's saw a significant period of growth, low unemployment, and I heightened building construction, we only had a population increase of 2.4 percent for the decade. The City of Harrisburg continued to lose people during the 1980's as well as some of the neighboring boroughs which include; Highspire Borough, Hummelstown Borough, I Middletown Borough, and Steelton Borough. This decline in population helped offset some of the mild gains we saw in the developing townships of the County. This particular region did not reap all I of the benefits of the recovery following the major recession of the early 1980's which illustrates in part why the population I increase for the County was minimal at best. 4-7 I TABLE 4-3 I Population Change By Municipality Dauphin County 1940-1990

Change %Change %Change I 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1980-1990 1970-1980 1980-1990

Berrysburg Boro. 426 386 434 443 447 376 -71 0.9 -15.9 I Conewago Twp. 929 966 1,353 1,124 2,471 2,832 36 1 119.8 14.6 Dauphin Boro. 620 667 638 998 90 1 845 -56 -9.7 -6.2 brry Twp. 8,653 9,993 12,388 15,452 18,115 18,408 293 17.2 1.6 I East Hanover Twp. 1,213 1,557 1,535 2,938 3,574 4.569 995 21.6 27.8 ' Elhbethville Boro. 1,410 1,506 1,455 1,629 1,53 1 1,467 -64 -6 -4.2 Gratz Boro. 692 653 704 675 678 696 18 0.4 2.7 Halifax Boro. 813 822 824 907 909 91 1 2 0.1 0.2 I Halifax Twp. 1,276 1,424 1,747 2,038 2,943 3,449 506 44.4 17.2 Harrisburg City 83,893 89,544 79,697 68,061 53,264 52,376 -888 -21.7 -1.7 Highspire Boro. 2,371 2,799 2,999 2,947 2,959 2,668 -291 0.4 -9.8 I Hummelstown Boro. 3264 3,789 4,474 4,723 4,267 3,981 -286 -9.7 -6.7 Jackson Twp. 883 998 1,016 1,156 1,568 1,797 229 35.6 14.6 Jefferson Twp. 134 150 178 164 340 385 45 107.3 13.2 Londonderry Twp. 1,307 1,595 3,053 3,453 5.138 4,926 -212 48.8 -4.1 I Lower Paxton Twp. 4,157 6,546 17,618 26,517 34,830 39,162 4332 31.3 12.4 Lower Swatara Twp. 1,184 3,557 4,508 5,267 6,772 7,072 300 28.6 4.4 Lykens Boro. 3,048 2,735 2,527 2,506 2,181 1,986 -195 -13 -8.9 I Lykens Twp. 1,060 1 ,OOo 975 997 1,138 1,238 100 14.1 8.8 Middle Paxton Twp. 1,683 2,155 3,124 3,362 4,745 5,129 384 41.1 8.1 Middletown Boro. 7,046 9,184 11,182 9,080 10,122 9254 -868 11.5 -8.6 Mifflin Twp. 486 488 50 1 475 553 676 123 16.4 22.2 I Millersburg Boro. 2,959 2,861 2,984 3,074 2,770 2,729 -41 -9.9 -1.5 Paxtang Boro. 1,707 1,857 1,916 2,039 1,649 1,599 -50 -19.1 -3 Pennbrook Boro. 3,627 3,69 1 3,671 3,379 3,006 2,729 -277 -11 -7.2 I Pillow Boro. 329 323 348 332 359 34 1 -18 8.1 -5 Reed Twp. 245 246 25 1 259 289 259 30 11.6 -10.4 Royalton Boro. 1,201 1.175 1,128 1.040 98 1 1,120 139 -5.7 14.2 I Rush Twp. 109 103 113 160 212 20 1 -11 32.5 -5.2 South Hanover Twp. 1,475 1,581 1,841 2,689 4,046 4,626 580 50.5 14.3 Steelton Boro. 13,115 12,574 11,266 8,556 6,484 5,152 -1332 -24.2 -20.5 Susquehanna Twp. 8,716 11,081 17,474 17,008 18,034 18,636 602 6 3.3 I Swatara Twp. 6,866 9,350 14,795 17,178 18,796 19,661 865 9.4 4.6 Upper Paxton Twp. 1,747 2,225 2,555 2,718 3,435 3,680 245 26.4 7.1 Washington Twp. 978 912 932 1,114 1,734 1,816 82 55.7 4.7 I Wayne Twp. 343 363 432 513 698 847 149 36.1 21.4 West Hanover Twp. 1,009 1,495 2,770 4,407 6,115 6,125 10 38.8 0.2 Wiconisco Twp. 2,273 1992 1,801 1.47 1 1,566 1,372 -194 6.5 -12.4 I Williams Twp. 1,394 1,109 95 1 945 1,033 1,146 113 9.3 10.9 Williamstown Boro. 2,769 2.332 2,097 1,919 1,664 1,509 -155 -13.3 -9.3

TOTAL COUNTY 177,410 197,784 220,255 223,713 232,317 237,751 5,494 3.8 2.37 I SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS I I I I I POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Dauphin County’s 1990 population of 237,813 persons was I distributed over its 517.7 square miles in patterns of varying densities resulting in an average of 459.3 persons per square mile (See Table 4-4). Population density varies from a low of 8.9 persons per square mile in sparsely populated Rush Township to a 1 high of 6891.5 persons per square mile in the City of Harrisburg.

~ TABLE 4-4 I POPULATION DENSITY Dauphin County - 1990 I Area Densitv Municipality Population Ss. Mi. (Persons/Sq.‘Mi. 1 Berrysburg Boro. 376 0.7 . 537.1 Conewago Township 2,832 16.3 173.7 I Dauphin Borough 845 0.4 2112.5 Derry Township 18,408 27.1 679.3 E. Hanover Twp. 4,569 39.1 116.9 I Elizabethville B. 1,467 0.4 3667.5 Gratz Borough 696 2.7 257.8 Halifax Borough 911 0.2 4555.0 Halifax Township 3,449 26.7 129.2 I Harrisburg City 52,376 7.6 6891.6 Highspire Boro. 2,668 0.6 4446.7 Hummelstown Boro. 3,981 1.4 2843.6 I Jackson Township 1,797 39.2 45.8 Jefferson Township 385 24.4 15.8 Londonderry Twp. 4,926 22.1 222.9 I Lower Paxton Twp. 39,162 28.4 1378.9 Lower Swatara Twp. 7,072 12.4 570.3 Lykens Borough 1,986 0.9 2206.7 Lykens Township 1,238 26.0 47.6 I Middle Paxton Twp,. 5,129 53.1 96.6 Middletown Boro. 9,254 1.7 5443.3 Mifflin Township 676 15.6 43.3 Millersburg Boro. 2,729 0.6 4548.3 Paxtang Borough 1,599 0.4 3997.5 Penbrook Borough 2,729 0.5 5458.0 II ll Pillow Borough 341 1.0 341 .O Reed Township 259 6.2 41.6 Royalton Borough 1,120 0.4 2800.0 Rush Township 201 22.4 8.9 S. Hanover Twp. 4,626 11.5 402.3 Steelton Borough 5,152 3.3 1561.2 Susquehanna Twp. 18,636 13.5 1380.4 Swatara Township 19,661 12.7 1548.1 Upper Paxton Twp. 3,680 26.1 141.0 Washington Twp. 1,816 17.0 106.8 Wayne Township 847 13.9 60.9 W. Hanover Twp. 6,125 22.7 269.8 Wiconisco Twp. 1,372 9.7 141.4 Williams Township 1,146 8.5 94.3 Williamstown Boro. 1,509 0.3 5030.0 COUNTY TOTAL 237,813 517.7 459.4 I SOURCE: U.S. Census 1990, Pennsylvania Department of Commerce I 4-9 I

As would be expected, population densities are lowest in the municipalities located fully or partially within the Blue, Second, I Peters, Broad, Berry and Mahantango mountain ranges, where steep slopes and the State-owned Game Lands constrain development. Conversely, population densities tend to be highest moving toward I Harrisburg city and along the Great Valley area. In general, the Boroughs are more densely populated than the Townships, although some deviation exists since some Boroughs possess more undeveloped land than others. Proximity to major traffic routes (such as PA I Routes 22/322, 209 and 1-81 and 83) is also associated with more dense patterns of development. Map 4-1 illustrates these patterns of density distribution. 1 According to the U.S. Census, approximately 74.8 percent of the total population of Dauphin County was considered to be urban in 1980. This relatively high percentage relates to the location I of the City of Harrisburg within Dauphin County. In comparison, Cumberland County had a lower percentage of urbanized population (62.3 percent) , while Perry County remained predominantly rural, I with only 6.9 percent of the population living within urbanized areas in 1980. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS I Understanding population characteristics of a growing community or region is important for decision makers. Many of I these characteristics can be associated with questions attempting to answer how the land might be used, who is available to work in this community, what kinds of commercial, professional and services I businesses will be in demand and where should community facilities be located to serve the different populations. The following section will look at some of the characteristics in Dauphin County. I Aqe Composition A breakdown of Dauphin County's population by age (and sex) I groups is shown in Table 4-5 and Chart 4-3. The number of children under the age of 18 years is quite important in determining the present and future needs of each school district. The ratio of I school age children to adults that are property owners dictates the tax burden necessary to fund an adequate educational system. It is expectedthat increases in the enrollments of some school districts located within rapidly growing areas of the County will be I reflected in the 1990 Census figuresJofschool age population (e.g. Central Dauphin, Derry Township, Susquehanna Township, and Middletown Area School Districts). In 1990, the school age group 1 of 5-18 years of age claimed 24.6 percent of the total population of the County, up from 21.4 percent in 1980. Looking toward future school district enrollment, the age group 0-4 years increased slightly from 6.3 percent of total population in 1980 to 7.0 I percent in 19 90 . I

4-10 I I 1

1 TABLE 4-5 POPULATION BY AGE BY SEX I Dauphin County 1990 # % # % Total Pop. % Total Pop. Group Male Male Female Female in Group in Group 0-4 8506 3.6 8070 3.4 16576 7.0 I 5-9 7922 3.3 7662 3.3 15982 6.6 10-14 7494 3.2 7248 3.0 14742 6.2 15-19 7461 3.1 7209 3.1 14670 6.2 I 20-24 8010 3.4 8200 3.4 16210 6.8 25-29 9881 4.2 10294 4 ..3 20175 8.5 30-34 10297 4.3 10809 4.6 21106 8.9 35-44 18715 7.9 19034 7.9 37749 15.8 I 45-54 11727 4.9 12686 5.4 24413 10.3 55-59 5187 2.2 5877 2.5 11064 4.7 60-61 2157 0.9 2452 1.0 4609 1.9 1 62-64 3205 1.3 3698 1.6 6903 2.9 65-74 8410 3.6 11392 4.7 19802 8.3 75-84 3880 1.6 7161 3.0 11041 4.6 I 85+ 820 0.3 2349 1.0 3169 1.3 I TOTALS 113,672 47.8 124,141 52.2 237,813 100 SOURCE: U.S. Census 1990 I The age group from 20-34 years contains most of the people forming households and couples in their prime childbearing years. I The size of this group and the number of children they choose to bear will build the base for future generations. The size of this group decreased from 25.4 percent of the total County population in I 1980 to 24.2 percent in 1990. By adding ten years to this group, to cover 20-44 years, the end product is a segment of population that could be called the Productive Age Group since they comprise a majority of the local labor force and are most active in buying I and building homes. In 1980, this group represented 36.1 percent of the population, however, by 1990 it increased to a 40.0 percent I share of the population. The next segment of population, 45-64 years, could be called the Mature Age Group. As a whole, this group is not nearly as I involved in household formation, new home buying or building, and is past the prime childbearing years. A decrease in size occurred from 22.0 percent of the County population in 1980 to 19.8 percent I in 1990. I

I 4-11 I I I CHART 4 - 3 MALE, FEMALE AGE GROUP POPULATIONS DAUP H IN COUNT Y 1990 I

AGE GROUPS MALE FEMALE I 0-4 I 5-9 I 10 - 14

15 - 19 I 20 - 24 I 25 - 29 I 30 - 34

35 - 44 I 45 - 54 I 55 - 59 I 60 - 61 I 62 - 64

65 - 74 I 75 - 84 I 85+ I 1086420246810” SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, 1990 1 I

The Retired Age Group includes anyone 65 years and older. This portion of society needs to be followed closely since there I are many changes that take place after retirement. Among this age bracket there often is a need for lower budget housing, public transportation, community care facilities, and health care 1 facilities. There was a small increase between 1970 and 1980 in percentage of total population, 11.4 percent and 12.5 percent, and from 1980 to 1990 we saw an increase of 1.8 percent to a total of 14.3 percent respectively, in the Retired Age Group. It is I anticipated that the oldest segment of the Retired Age Group will increase in size as life expectancy increases. The age group of over 85 years increased from .87 percent in 1970 to just over one I percent in 1980 and to 1.3 percent in 1990. Comparing the City of Harrisburg's population to the County as a whole, it may be noted that the total population of the city 1 declined by approximately 1.7 percent from 1980 to 1990 (according to the US Census), while the County's population increased by 2.4 percent over the same time period. Also, the median age in the I City in 1980 (31.8) was lower than the County as a whole (35.0). However, the changes that occurred in age distribution are optimistic for the future of the city. The school age population I (5-18) remained fairly stable, dropping slightly from 22.1 percent of the City's total population to 19.5 percent in 1990. The Young Adult Group aged 20-34 years represented 24.7 percent of the City's population in 1980 and 26.0% in 1990. A decrease occurred in the I proportion of the population that was in the mature Age Group, 45- 64 years, from 19.4% in 1980 to 16.2% in 1990, while the Retired Age Group in the City decreased from 15.3% in 1980 to 13.0% in 1 1990. TABLE 4-6 MEDIAN AGE 1960-1990 I DAUPHIN COUNTY COMPARED TO PENNSYLVANIA DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA I All Persons Male Female All Persons Male Female 1960 32.6 31.5 33.6 32.0 31.2 32.7~. 1970 31.9 29.9 33.7 30.7~~. 29.1 32.4 1 1980 32.0 30.3 33.6 32.1 30.4 33.6 1990 35.0 33.7 35.4 35.0 SOURCE: U.S. Census (Census of Population), 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 I

The trends in median age in Dauphin County are compared to I Statewide trends from 1960-1990 in Table 4-6. During the 1960's and 1970's Dauphin's male median age was still higher than the State's, while the female median age was approximately one year higher. Since women generally live longer than men, the female I median age is older than the male median age in all cases. By 1980, there was very little difference between the State and county median age figures. The 1990 median age for the State (35.0) was I the same as the U.S. median age (), indicating a relatively more mature population in Pennsylvania. I 4-13- I I Male-Female Distribution The male-female distribution affects future household formation and subsequent birth rates. It is necessary for the 20 to 44 years age group to maintain a male-female balance in order to I assure maximum household formations and consistent natural birth rates. It is commonly recognized that a slightly higher proportion of females to males is a favorable environment for a more stable I population. This is the case in Dauphin County where females outnumbered males 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent in 1980, and also in 1990 with 52.2 of the population being females and 47.8 being I males. As the balance of the sexes appears to have stabilized with a slightly higher female percentage, this should produce a consistent natural growth in future years. I Table 4-5, Population by Age By Sex, shows some variation in male-female balance through the age spectrum in 1990. The only age group in which males outnumbered females was the 0-19 group (31,383 1 males to 30,189 females). This can be partially explained by the fact that more male babies are born than female babies. On the other hand the female population showed a marked increase from about age 55 and up, where females outnumbered males by 9,270 and I represented 13.8 percent of the total County population, compared to 9.9 percent for the males. This trend is also present in Pennsylvania and the United States age by sex data, supporting the I general idea that women have a longer life span. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics I In 1990, 82.5 percent of the total population of Dauphin county was classified as white; 15.0 percent as black and 2.5 percent as being of Spanish origin. The greatest racial diversity I was found in the City of Harrisburg, where 42.6 percent of the total population was white, 50.6 percent black and 7.7 percent of Spanish origin in 1990. As anticipated the percentage identified I as of Spanish origin in the City in the 1990 census did increase, in part due to the arrival of Cubans during the mid to late 1980's. Of the other racial groups in the County, there were 2,770 I Asian or Pacific Islanders, the greatest proportion of the group being Vietnamese, and 335 American Indians. Residents of Spanish origin totaled 6,024 in 1990. Of this group 64.2 percent 1 identified themselves as Puerto Rican and 12.6 percent as Mexican. Foreign born residents totaled 5,483, or 2.4 percent of the total population in 1980. The highest single total of foreign born I residents were from Italy (815) and Germany (579). Reflecting the historic pattern of predominantly Germanic settlement in Central Pennsylvania, 36.6 percent of the total 1 County population (105,186 persons) was classified in the German single ancestry group in the 1990 Census. The English single ancestry group accounted for 6.9 percent of all persons while the I similar Irish group claimed 10.6 percent. 72.1 percent of all persons in the County were associated with a German, English or Irish single or multiple ancestry group. The remaining ancestry I 4-14 I groups were mostly of Eastern, Central or Western European origin. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS Educational Profile and Backsround Education enrollment profiles for Dauphin County for 1980 and 1990 are illustrated in Table 4-7. Enrollment at the public kindergarten, elementary and high school levels dropped from 1980 to 1990. This loss probably can be explained by the decrease in the numbers of school age children caused by declining birth rates during the late 1960's and early 1970's and continuing throughout the decade of the 1980,s. Migration does not seem to have had a significant impact of the number of school age children in Dauphin County (See page 4-32 for a discussion on the impacts of , migration). During 1990, 76.8 percent more students were attending college than in 1980, reflecting a greater desire for college education and better preparation at the high school level, as well as the passing through of the "baby boom" generation into the young adult age group during this time.

TABLE 4-7 DAUPHIN COUNTY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Percent 1980 1990 Chanqe Persons 3 years or 55,035 52,439 -4.7 older enrolled in school Preprimary 5,438 3,642 -32.8

I Elementary School (Includes 27,523 21,269 -22.7 Grades 1-8) High School 15,038 1'5,090 0.03

College (Public & 7,036 12,438 76.8 Private) SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1980, 1990, and Pennnsylvania Department of Education, 1991

- Table 4-8 examines the educational history of all persons 25 years and older in Dauphin County and compares it with the two other counties in the Harrisburg SMSA. 77.6 percent of the population had graduated from high school in 1990, lower than Cumberland but higher than Perry County, and also close to the Statewide figure of 74.7 percent. The relatively low percentage of high school graduates in Harrisburg City (67.2 percent) is typical of a large urban area, and negatively impacts the Dauphin County figure. Perry County reflects the historic pattern of lower graduation rates in more rural areas. All three Counties, however, 4-15 I experienced significant gains in the percent of high school R graduates since 1980. m TABLE 4-8 EDUCATION BACKGROUND - PERSONS OVER 25 YEARS OLD % of I Dauphin Persons 25+ Cumberland % Perry % 0-8 years of 12,035 7.5 9,106 7.1 2,596 9.9 Elementary m 1-3 years of 23,917 14.9 15,122 11.9 4,707 17.9 High School 4 years of 63,364 39.5 48,490 38.0 13,023 49.4 High School I 1-3 years of 16,850 19.5 25,557 20.0 3,691 14.0 College 4 years or 29,791 18.6 29,176 22.9 2,337 8.9 I more of College Total % High School 77.6 81.0 72.3 Graduates 1990 Total % High School 60.6 53.2 45.1 I Graduates 1980 SOURCE: U.S. Census, Census of Population - Characteristics ofthe I Population, Pennsylvania, 1980 - General Social and Economic Characteristics, Pennsylvania, 1990 I Household Characteristics The size of households has been decreasing nationwide, and in Dauphin County, as well. Table 4-9 shows that this trend is I consistent throughout Pennsylvania and the Tri-County Region. Several forces are behind this decline. As previously discussed, one factor is that more couples are having fewer children. More I people, both young and elderly, are living alone, resulting in an increase in the number of one person households. At the same time, the increase in the number of non-family households and single I parent families has led to even smaller households. A breakdown of household size changes by municipality is shown in Table 4-9. No noticeable geographic trend exists within the I county. All of the municipalities in Dauphin County experienced a drop in household size from 1970 to 1980, and again between 1980 to 1990 we saw household size drop or stay the same in all I municipalities except Mifflin Township which increased from 3 persons per household to 3.1 in 1990. I 1

I 4-16 I TABLE 4-9 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1950-1990

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Cumberland County 3.35 3.29 3.13 2.71 2.51 Dauphin County 3.15 3.13 2.91 2.58 2.45 Perry County 3.52 3.41 3.19 2.87 2.73 Harrisburg City 3.15 2.85 2.60 2.39 2.39 Pennsylvania ------2.74 2.57

TABLE 4-10 HOUSEHOLD SIZE CHANGE DAUPHIN COUNTY 1980-1990 Persons/ Persons/ Household Household in 1980 in 1990 %Chanqe Berrysburg Borough 3.2 2.7 -15.6 Conewago Township 3.1 2.9 -6.5 Dauphin Borough 2.9 2.6 -10.3 Derry Township 2.5 2.3 -8.0 E. Hanover Township 2.8 2.7 -3.6 Elizabethville Boro. 2.6 2.5 -3.8 Gratz Borough 2.6 2.4 -7.7 Halifax Borough 2.7 2.5 -7.4 Halifax Township 2.9 2.7 -6.9 Harrisburg City 2.4 2.4 0.0 Highspire Borough 2.5 2.3 -3.8 Humelstown Borough 2.5 2.2 -12.0 Jackson Township 3.3 2.9 -12.1 Jefferson Township 2.8 2.8 0.0 Londonderry Township 3.0 2.7 -10.0 Lower Paxton Township 2.6 2.4 -7.7 Lower Swatara Township 2.8 2.6 -7.1 Lykens Borough 2.5 2.3 -8.0 Lykens Township 3.1 3.1 0.0 ' Middle Paxton Township 2.9 2.7 -6.9 Middletown Borough 2.5 2.3 -8.0 Mifflin Township 3.0 3.1 +3.3 Millersburg Borough 2.4 2.2 -8.3 Paxtang Borough 2.4 2.3 -4.2 Penbrook Borough 2.3 2.2 -4.3 Pillow Borough 2.8 2.6 -7.1 Reed Township 2.9 2.5 -13.8 Royalton Borough 2.9 2.6 -10.3 Rush Township 2.8 2.5 -10.7 S. Hanover Township 3.0 2.9 -3.3 Steelton Borough 2.6 2.4 -7.7 Susquehanna Township 2.5 2.4 -4.0 Swatara Township 2.7 2.4 -11.1 Upper Paxton Township 2.9 2.7 -6.9 Washington Township 3.0 2.8 -6.7 Wayne Township 3.2 3.0 -6.3 W. Hanover Township 3.1 2.8 -9.7 Wiconisco Township 2.9 2.7 -6.9 Williams Township 2.7 2.6 -3.7 Williamstown Borough 2.5 2.3 -8.0 DAUPHIN COUNTY 2.6 2.45 -5.8

4-17 I I Marital Status 53.3 percent of all persons 15 years and older in Dauphin County were married in 1990 (See Table 4-11). The SMSA averaged 1 59.9 percent married, while Perry County recorded 65.0 percent and Cumberland County 58.5 percent. Widowed females outnumbered widowed males almost five to one, I a phenomenon present in the two other Counties, as well. It is a known fact that women live longer than men, therefore, more wives outlive their husbands than vice versa. Adding to that is the I theory that widowed men are prone to remarry sooner than widowed women. On a nationwide scale couples have been marrying later in life 1 than in previous years. Also the number of non-married couples has increased. These trends are evident in the County, since the proportion of the population married dropped from approximately I 61.2 percent in 1970 to 55.8 percent in 1980 to 53.3 percent in 1990 (1970 marital status data included persons 14 years or older). I Divorcees accounted for 8.1 percent of Dauphin’s over 15 population in 1990, more than doubling the proportion for 1970 (3.2 percent). One effect of the increase in divorce is the rise in the percentage of children living with one parent. In 1980, 72.7 I percent of the children in the County under 18 years of age lived with both parents. By 1990, this figure had declined to 51.3 percent. Also, in 1990 17.7 percent of the families in Dauphin I County were headed by a female householder with no husband present. This figure is higher than both Cumberland County (10.7 percent) I and Perry County (9.9 percent).

TABLE 4-11 I MARITAL STATUS BY SEX PERSONS OVER 15 YEARS OF AGE - DAUPHIN COUNTY, 1990 I # % of # % of Male Males Female Females Never Married 27,206 30.3 24,519 24.2 Now Married, Except I Separated 51,031 56.9 50,720 50.1 Separated f 2,328 2.6 3,064 3.0 Widowed 2,801 3.1 13,708 13.6 I Divorced 6,389 7.1 9,145 9.0 Total Over 15 Years of Age 89,755 101,156 I SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1990 Census of Population, General Social I and Economic Characteristics

I 4-18 I I ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1 Employment Status The employment status of the labor force has a direct effect 1 on the present quality of life and future growth potential of any community. The labor force in Dauphin County was comprised of 67.3 percent of all persons over the age of 16 years in 1990, up from 63.4 percent in 1980 (See Table 4-12). The proportion of the I civilian labor force that was unemployed declined from 0.5 percent to 4.6 percent during the time period between 1980 and 1990. However, employment in the Tri-County Region has expanded during I the mid to late 1980's, following the national and state trend. According to a recent report by the Department of Labor and Industry, the County's unemployment rate was 5.0 percent in January 1992. I

Table 4-11 also shows the increase in the labor force participation of females, especially among those with small I children. Following the national trend, more women joined the labor force between 1970 and 1980 than ever before in a single decade which continued for the subsequent decade. The labor force share of females over 16 years jumped 7 percent to 52.7 percent in I in 1980 and to 59.6 percent in 1990. Also, the percentage of females in the labor force with children aged 6-17 rose 12.9 percent between 1980 and 1990, while the percentage with children 1 under age 6 increased by an even greater amount (19.5 percent). I TABLE 4-12 EMPLOYMENT STATUS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1980-1990 I 1980 1990 TOTAL > I Percent of total persons over 16 years: - in labor force 63.4 67.3 - in civilian labor force, unemployed 5.1 4.6 I MALES Percent of males over 16 years: - in labor force 75.6 76.0 I '- in civilian labor force, unemployed 5.5 4.6

FEMALES ' I Percent of females over 16 years: - in labor force 52.7 59.6 - in civilian labor force, unemployed 4.6 4.5 - with own children aged 6-17, I in labor force 67.2 80.2 - With own children under age 6, in labor force 45.6 65.1 I SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1980, 1990

4-19 I I I

I Tables 4-13 and 4-14 list the occupational characteristics of Dauphin County residents over 16 years of age by municipality. These tables provide a general overview of how the population earns I its income. Chart 4-4 graphically displays the County's work force by industry category. Occupational information is discussed further in the Economic Base Chapter. I Location of Employment and Commutinq Trends Employment availability with'in a county has a direct influence I on the amount of time residents spend commuting to work each day. The mean travel time for a Dauphin County commuter is 19.0 minutes, compared to the mean travel time for Cumberland and Perry County commuters, which is 18.2 and 29.2 minutes, respectively. The I Harrisburg urbanized area provides many employment opportunities, resulting in shorter travel times for Dauphin and Cumberland Counties. A longer average travel time in Perry County is I indicative of a more rural area, since the employment centers are smaller and more widely dispersed. The shorter average commutes of Dauphin and Cumberland county workers result in lower fixed costs I of traveling to work for these residents. Table 4-15 lists the mean travel time by municipality for Dauphin County. The municipalities that are closer to Harrisburg I generally have shorter travel times than those that are more distant. Boroughs within the County also tend to have shorter travel times, since they are local employment centers in their own I right. The various means of transportation to work and the percentage of persons using each type are listed in Table 4-16. As would be 1 expected, 86.2 percent of all job-holders in the County, use a car, truck or van to get to work. Although almost two-thirds of all workers drive alone, nearly one quarter participate in a carpool. I 5.4 percent of Dauphin County's workers used public transportation to get to work in 1980, compared to 1.8 percent in Cumberland County and one percent in Perry County. Reasons for Dauphin's higher use of public transportation include a greater number of I service routes and a greater range of area covered by routes in the I County. I I I

I 4-20 I I I Chart 4 - 4 I Dauphin County Employed Persons Totals for the County by Industry - 1989 I I

0 10 20 30 40 50 I Ag., Forest., Fish. I Construction 1 Manufacturing

Transportation I

Communication I Wholesale Trade I Retail Trade I FinJns., Real Est.

Business and Repair I Personal Ent. & Rec. I Professional Service I Public Admin.

0 10 20 30 40 50 1 Thousands I # Employed Persons Source: Bureau of Research and Statistics I I 1

TABLE 4712 1 OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990 TOTAL EMPLOYED EMPLOYED PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OVER BY OCCUPATION PRECISION I TECHNICAL/ FARMING PROD., OPERATORS MANAGERIAL/ SALES FORESTRY CRAFT. AND MALE FEMALE PROFESSIONAL h ADM. SERVICE h FISHING 6 REPAIR LABORERS BERRYSBURG BOR. 116 74 20 48 15 1 48 58 CONEWAGO TWP. 861 647 341 461 178 i. . 64 215 249 1 DAUPHIN BOR. 216 196 81 135 66 2 42 87 DERRY TWP. 4997 4223 3526 2859 1147 49 629 1010 EAST HANOVER TWP. 1287 1078 644 687 247 60 347 380 ELIZABETHVILLE BOR. 376 331 131 177 81 9 128 181 GRATZ BOR. 193 152 29 74 51 10 46 135 HALIFAX BOR. 199 225 46 116 58 2 69 133 1 HALIFAX TWP. 1075 797 308 629 153 30 388 364 HARRISBURG CITY 11547 11354 5201 8030 4306 37 1776 3551 HIGHSPIRE BOR. 712 606 200 563 148 4 99 304 HUMMELSTOWN BOR. 1064 1016 449 730 230 3 287 381 JACKSON TWP. 540 437 127 258 78 44 181 289 t JEFFERSON TWP. 110 80 35 45 18 3 35 54 LONDONDERRY TWP. 1469 1185 4 64 836 288 16 503 541 LOWER PAXTON TWP. 11728 10801 8020 8662 1970 120 1604 2153 LOWER SWATARA TWP. 2144 1663 802 1474 481 87 412 551 LYKENS BOR. 463 395 114 231 60 6 172 275 LYKENS TWP. 31 9 230 38 88 57 97 78 191 I MIDDLE PAXTON TWP. 1601 1281 755 882 415 46 432 352 MIDDLETOWN BOR. 2280 2192 971 1506 731 31 395 038 MIFFLIN TWP. 198 123 39 65 21 55 43 98 MILLERSBURG BOR. 664 590 226 435 116 5 163 309 PAXTANG BOR. 433 405 318 2 63 90 4 71 92 PENBROOK BOR. 754 680 271 623 163 6 133 238 I PILLOW BOR. a3 ' 71 18 24 25 4 20 63 REED TWP. 77 62 25 39 33 2 18 22 ROYALTON BOR. 290 251 48 185 105 3 71 129 RUSH TWP. 56 35 26 20 5 0 20 20 SOUTH HANOVER TWP. 1363 1154 84 5 800 160 47 323 342 STEELTON TWP. 1221 1361 473 1078 430 13 189 399 I SUSQUEHANNA TWP. 5096 4536 3675 3571 866 65 612 843 SWATARA TWP. 5533 4603 2530 4024 1282 54 991 1255 UPPER PAXTON TWP. 982 733 354 388 144 58 322 449 WASHINGTON TWP. 54 5 387 131 230 67 40 123 311 WAYNE TWP. 242 188 71 141 50 12 74 82 1 WEST HANOVER TWP. 1922 1599 974 1339 34 9 48 464 347 WICONISCO TWP. 336 288 79 156 48 4 91 246 WILLIAMS TWP. 291 214 63 130 26 3 109 174 WILLIAMSTOWN BOR. 342 309 65 152 71 0 113 250 TOTAL 63,695 56,552 32,533 42,153 14,029 1,144 11,836 17,752 1 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A I I I I I 1 I TABLE 4-13 Employed Persons 16 Years 8 Over by Industry - Dauphin County 1990

Agric. Finance Business Personal Forestry Whole- Insurance and Enter. Fishing Constr- Manufae sale Retail 8 Real Repair & Rm- Prot. Public Municipality Mining uction turing Trans. Comm. Trade Trade Estate Services reation Services Admin. Berrysburg Boro. 11 14 89 16 5 4 16 6 4 22 12 Conewago Twp. 65 86 329 40 55 32 158 32 27 67 239 47 Dauphin Boro. 13 30 70 31 10 26 81 17 15 7 71 64 Derry Twp. 114 264 1,890 320 259 182 1037 442 226 580 21 86 640 East Hanover Twp. 49 133 388 69 41 68 277 43 75 160 232 1 70 Elizabethville Boro. 7 27 344 22 18 11 84 36 12 23 86 39 Gratz Boro. 18 30 120 11 8 8 33 15 3 12 18 25 Halifax Boro. 25 130 23 6 15 51 39 7 2 56 30 Halifax Twp. 57 88 440 71 19 94 78 50 23 28 186 126 Harrisburg City 80 583 3,168 1,001 696 673 261 3 1265 699 787 3984 5582 Highspire Boro. 86 355 98 48 46 237 72 46 35 245 272 Hummelstown Boro. 6 64 477 124 77 74 371 120 57 143 41 7 180 Jackson Twp. 51 59 242 52 14 24 55 44 11 24 57 53 Jefferson Twp. 10 11 48 14 2 2 17 5 6 3 16 4 Londonderry Twp. 136 172 608 141 185 53 289 103 99 37 343 205 Lower Paxton Twp. 120 906 2,471 1,068 507 81 0 2928 1396 683 557 3727 3799 Lower Swatara Twp. 36 95 71 1 323 112 156 51 3 136 65 104 534 499 Lykens Boro. 9 35 41 1 34 17 9 158 37 13 36 71 115 Lykens Twp. 92 27 226 33 2 17 44 14 4 3 36 19 Middle Paxton Twp. 21 180 376 223 49 122 350 172 127 59 393 285 Middletown Boro. 20 159 841 307 328 139 71 0 243 162 149 626 852 Mifflin Twp. 33 26 92 22 3 18 9 7 14 20 Millersburg Boro. 36 504 41 33 26 180 50 16 38 160 43 Paxtang Boro. 3 29 114 49 22 35 129 109 22 32 146 150 Pennbrook Boro. 5 97 166 93 54 49 206 115 92 49 240 31 3 Pillow Boro. 16 4 57 16 6 33 4 11 9 Reed Twp. 3 10 36 12 4 3 15 10 3 8 6 24 Royalton Boro. 4 29 118 34 23 24 48 15 7 20 59 71 Rush Twp. 4 8 21 5 6 4 8 2 2 2 2 25 South Hanover Twp. 64 120 537 74 49 99 280 102 42 87 444 146 Steelton Boro. 7 105 61 2 155 90 55 474 93 85 105 481 727 Susquehanna Twp. 37 370 876 51 5 305 480 1334 580 243 170 21 39 1521 Swatara Twp. 37 31 7 1,639 572 260 399 1543 773 336 301 1455 1559 Upper Paxton Twp. 55 97 577 114 19 71 195 101 23 12 253 97 Washington Twp. 59 26 302 35 7 38 78 26 3,7 19 110 56 Wayne Twp. 20 22 99 24 2 8 27 28 11 6 30 35 West Hanover Twp. 32 222 477 243 18 171 573 228 105 98 523 337 Wiconisa, Twp. 14 24 409 9 17 3 46 17 6 4 59 84 Williams Twp. 10 20 237 19 14 5 38 14 9 12 30 65 Williamstown Boro. 16 20 31 2 27 6 10 45 16 4 16 70 148

TOTAL COUNTY 1,334 4,656 20,919 6,080 3,390 4,051 15,370 6,564 3,418 3,806 19,777 18,448

SOURCE: US. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing TABLE 4-15 MEAN TRAVEL TIME TO WORK BY MUNICIPALITY Dauphin County 1990 I Municipality Mean Travel Time (Minutes) Berrysburg Borough 31.6 Conewago Township 19.9 Dauphin Borough 19.9 I Derry Township 17.4 E. Hanover Township 18.3 Elizabethville Boro. 25.4 I Gratz Borough 28.7 Halifax Borough + 25.1 Halifax Township 27.4 Harrisburg City 17.2 I Highspire Borough 18.8 Hummelstown Borough 17.8 Jackson Township 31.7 I Jefferson Township 35.9 Londonderry Township 19.6 Lower Paxton Township 18.3 Lower Swatara Township 16.7 I Lykens Borough 25.5 Lykens Township 26.5 Middle Paxton Township 24.3 I Middletown Borough 18.8 Mifflin Township 26.4 Millersburg Borough 26.0 I Paxtang Borough 14.9 Penbrook Borough 15.4 Pillow Borough 25.1 Reed Township 25.8 I Royalton Borough 19.0 Rush Township 24.0 S. Hanover Township 19.8 I Steelton Borough 16.7 Susquehanna Township 16.9 Swatara Township 17.2 Upper Paxton Township 26.3 I Washington Township 27.5 Wayne Township 32.8 W. Hanover Township 21.9 I Wiconisco Township 27.3 Williams Township 29.0 I Williamstown Borough 23.7 DAUPHIN COUNTY 19.0

4-24 I

TABLE 4-16 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK 1 DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990 Number of Percent of I Persons Total Car, Truck, or Van: Drive Alone 86,680 72.9 I Carpool 18,192 15.3 Public Transportation 4,518 3.8 Walked Only or Worked at Home 8,442 7.1 Other Means 1,070 0.9 I Source: U.S. Census, 1990 I Individual and Family Income I Individual and family income profiles are excellent indicators of a county’s physical quality of life and economic climate. These income characteristics are vital for determining the strength of the economic base. The ability to provide public and municipal I services depends on the tax base which is ultimately determined by the collective incomes of the community. The strength of the economic base affects the demand for commercial and professional I businesses, and indirectly influences population growth and other demographic characteristics. I Table 4-17 lists income characteristics by municipality in Dauphin County, including the most up-to-date 1990 Census STF-3A per capita income. There appears to be no definite trend associated with median income in the County. 1 Per capita income is the total individual income of an area divided by total population. It is not always an accurate 1 statistic to use for comparison since it is skewed by the presence of very large incomes or a large proportion of young, non-wage earning children. However, it does afford an approximation of the financial resources that would be available to each individual, if I they were equitably distributed. Table 4-17 lists 1980 per capita incomes and compares them to 1990 figures. Dauphin County’s per capita income increased by 97.9 percent in that time period, while 1 Cumberland County, Perry County, and Pennsylvania per capita incomes expanded by 104.0 , 95.0 , and 98.8 percent respectively. Median income statistics provide more accurate comparisons of I family and household income for a given population. A wide range exists in median income among the municipalities, again reflecting no definite geographic trends. I Also listed in Table 4-17 are percentages of persons and families below poverty level. These percentages are important to human services planning and in determining the need for, as well as I the allocation of public assistance programs.

4-25 I I I

TABLE 4-17 I INCOME AND POVERTY STATISTICS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990 CENSUS I INCOME POVERTY

Per Capita Persons F ami 1ie s 1 Municipality 1980 1990 Family/Household Below Below (M E A N) (MEDIAN) (P E R C E N T) DAUPHIN COUNTY 7525 14890 37254 30985 10.0 7.2 1 Berrysburg Boro. 5842 11237 29750 24464 11,.0 6.8 Conewago Twp. 8324 17050 42723 38457 1.5 1.1 Dauphin Boro. 7598 12430 31842 26181 7.4 7.1 Derry Twp. 8222 19594 46087 36514 4.8 1.9 I East Hanover Twp. 7196 15349 41890 38147 2.9 1.5 Elizabethville B. 6479 12014 30809 24200 7.8 4.3 Gratz Boro. 6245 16210 30769 22083 7.1 4.0 Halifax Boro. 5911 10692 30781 25865 11.7 7.6 I Halifax Twp. 6303 12946 34641 32612 2.6 1.7 Harrisburg City 6190 11037 24469 20329 26.7 23.9 Highspire Boro. 7434 13245 31944 24375 9.2 4.1 Hummelstown Boro. 7112 14475 35812 28534 6.8 5.3 D Jackson Township 5958 12773 35000 33406 5.5 3.7 Jefferson Twp. 6670 11868 37000 35000 7.1 8.2 Londonderry Twp. 7029 13013 37559 33397 4.7 4.3 L. Paxton Twp. 9004 18522 43360 37783 2.7 1.8 I L. Swatara Twp. 7343 14375 40414 35700 4.5 2.5 Lykens Boro. 6340 11416 30988 22562 10.4 6.8 Lykens Twp. 5507 9395 28589 26625 9.1 6.6 M. Paxton Twp. 8233 17169 39167 36113 4.7 2.9 Middletown Boro. 7170 13046 36030 28099 9.8 7.6 I Mifflin Twp. 6905 10663 30795 29911 9.4 4.9 Millersburg Boro. 6144 12987 30953 22702 10.1 7.4 Paxtang Boro. 9412 16863 42778 32826 3.6 2.1 Penbrook Boro. 7484 12831 32222 26250 5.8 3.5 I Pillow Boro. 5565 11863 30625 27153 2 -5 2.0 Reed Twp. 7170 12324 31917 30333 6.3 1.5 Royalton Boro. 6030 11863 36477 29861 6.3 3.4 Rush Twp. 7269 11817 27500 21250 6.0 5.8 D S. Hanover Twp. 7537 19203 49135 43652 3.4 3.4 Steelton Boro. 7050 12966 33125 28181 8.4 6.5 Susquehanna Twp. 9555 18241 42818 36296 5.0 2.5 Swatara Twp. 8283 14636 39435 33817 6.3 4.7 I U. Paxton Twp. 6231 11844 32129 29651 6.2 3.5 Washington Twp. 650 6 12684 34620 31250 6.8 5.0 Wayne Twp. 5896 13257 37917 37917 4.5 3.1 W. Hanover Twp. 7157 16028 45187 42194 3.9 2.1 D Wiconisco Twp. 5650 10598 30509 27262 8.5 6.8 Williams Twp. 6171 11738 33882 30156 10.0 6.6 Williamstown Boro 6144 10307 27303 22321 9.7 6.3 I SOURCE : PA State Data Center, 1990 Census of Population & Housing - STF3-A Pennsylvania. D 1 I 4-26 I I

Table 4-18 below shows historic and regional comparisons of persons and families below poverty level. While Dauphin County's I poverty levels (persons and families) were relatively greater than both Cumberland County's but less than Perry County's in 1970, by 1980 and 1990 Dauphin's poverty levels were higher than both 1 Cumberland and Perry Counties. This is probably largely due to a more significant drop in poverty levels in Perry County caused by in-migration of higher income persons/families. 1

TABLE 4-18 1 PERCENT OF PERSONS/FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL FOR HARRISBURG SMSA COUNTIES AND PA I 1980* 1990* Persons Families Persons Families Dauphin County 9.9 7.4 9.9 7.2 Perry County 8.2 6.3 7.4 6.3 1 Cumberland County 5.8 3.6 5.0 2.8 Pennsylvania 10.5 7.8 10.8 8.2 1 * Income data is for previous tax year, therefore, 1990 Census tabulates 1989 tax year data. I POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS I Geoqraphic Distribution of Growth As discussed earlier (see page 4-7) Dauphin County experienced 1 , a 3.8 percent increase in population during the decade between 1970 and 1980, and an increase of 2.4 percent between 1980 and 1990. Table 4-3 illustrates the percent changes by municipality for both ten year periods, and also lists the actual population totals for I each municipality. A wide range of population gains and losses were experienced 1 by the 40 municipalities in the County between 1980 and 1990. In terms of actual numbers of people, the greatest population increases were found in Lower Paxton Township (4,332 new residents) , East Hanover Township (995), Swatara Township (8651, I Susquehanna Township (602), and South Hanover Township (580). The highest numerical population losses were reported.by Steelton Borough (a decrease of 1,332 residents), Harrisburg City (-888), I and Middletown Borough (-868). In terms of percent change, the fastest growing municipalities I were, in general, some of the more rural townships including East Hanover Township (population increase of 27.8 percent), Mifflin Township (22.2%), Wayne Township (21.4%), and Halifax Township (17.2%). Highest percentage population declines were found in the I older urbanized areas, including Steelton Borough (-20.2 percent), Highspire Borough (-9.8%), and Middletown Borough (-8.6%) . I 4-27 I I However, out of the 40 total municipalities in the County, only 18 experienced a percentage loss in population between 1980 and 1990.

I Thirteen of the 15 Boroughs in Dauphin County lost population over the time period, and four out of the two remaining boroughs saw minimal population increases. One explanation for these I decreases and slow growth in Boroughs is that many of them have little vacant land left to be used for residential development. Therefore, since the number of persons per household decreased, the I net result was a population decrease. Table 4-3 (Population Change by Municipality) reveals that the municipalities which experiencedthe most growth in the last decade I had consistent growth rates throughout the past five decades. This trend is expected to continue since there is still land available for potential residential development within most of these Townships, although land prices are rising in many growing I municipalities. (The Boroughs are expected to continue to lose population at the same low rate as before, or increase slightly, because the same factors behind this decline will probably be I present for the next couple of decades). 1 Natural Increase The two components of population growth are the amount of natural increase and the net in-migration. The amount of natural increase shows the increase that occurs naturally in the population I and is equal to the number of births minus the number of deaths for a given year.

Chart 4-5 shows through the use of line graphs the number of I' births, the number of deaths, and the resulting amount of natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) for Dauphin County by year, from 1960 to 1988. Table 4-19 gives the actual figures ~I corresponding to the points on Chart 4-5. The Chart illustrates the greatest amount of natural increase in the County's population during this time period occurred in the very first year, 1960. I During this year, which was at the close of the "Baby Boom" years, the number of births was at it highest level since (4,818), and so was the rate of natural increase (2,478). We note that the death I rate has remained fairly constant over the years. Population growth that can be contributed to natural increase "bottomed outv1 in the County in 1975, where the lowest number of I births during the time period (2,924) resulted in a natural increase of only 520 persons. Since then, the number of births and the amount of natural increase have rebounded, however, they are 1 still less than their historical highs during the Baby Boom years. This trend is also seen at the State and national levels. During the decade 1970 - 1980, the amount of natural increase in the population of Dauphin County was 9,072 (equal to 35,365 births I minus 26,293 deaths). 1

I 4-28 I CHART 4 - 5 BIRTHS DEATHS, AMT NATURAL INCREASE DAUPHIN COUNTY 1960 - 1988

# (Thousands) 5

2 ......

1 ...... _-_......

0 II II Ill1IIII 1 III1 I II I I I I I I I 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

- BIRTHS + DEATHS NATURAL INCREASE

SOURCE: STATE HEALTH DATA CENTER I

TABLE 4-19 I NUMBER BIRTHS/DEATHS & AMT NATURAL INCREASE 1960 - 1988 I Dauphin County NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT YEAR BIRTHS DEATHS NATURAL INCREASE I 1960 4818 2340 2478 1961 4761 2464 2297 1962 4466 2465 2001 I 1963 4431 2562 1869 1964 4330 2561 1769 1965 3904 2519 1385 I 1966 3558 2558 1000 1967 3517 2517 1000 1968 3436 2661 775 1969 3560 2521 1039 I 1970 3754 2514 1240 1971 3614 2493 1121 1972 3272 2512 760 I 1973 3174 2357 817 1974 3015 2378 637 1975 2924 2404 520 1976 2966 2407 559 I 1977 3055 2278 777 1978 3059 2319 740 1979 3218 2281 937 1 1980 3314 2350 964 1981 3349 2280 1069 1982 3393 2342 1051 I 1983 3307 2235 1072 1984 3212 2255 957 1985 3334 2402 932 1986 3545 2416 1129 I 1987 3431 2378 1053 1988 3513 2379 1134 I SOURCE: State Health Data Center, Pennsylvania Department of Health

I Miqration What proportion of the change in population is due to people I moving in (in-migration) or out (out-migration) of an area? Today we are living in a time of a mobile population. It is important to recognize the movement of people into and out of a community when attempting to project future needs. One way to estimate the number 1 of migrating persons is to subtract the natural increase or decrease from the total population change for a given period. The I result is the net migration for the period. For Dauphin County during the 1970 - 1980 period, the amount I of natural increase (9,072) was greater than the actual increase in 4-30 I I population (8,604), indicating that the difference was due to an estimated loss in net migration of -468 persons (8,604 actual I increase - 9,072 natural increase = -468 net migration). As a percentage of the 1970 - 1980 population increase, migration accounted for -5.4 percent. It is anticipated that net migration will not result in a loss for the County in the next census, as the I job growth in the area is expected to have brought more people into the County than have moved out. I The information on migration by age (Table 4-20) shows that, for the 1975 - 1980 reporting period, a large portion of the out- migration was concentrated in the young adult population (ages 15- I 24). Persons in this age group are prone to be more mobile than other age groups, either attending college, serving in the Armed Forces, or just moving away from home. This trend should continue since persons in this age group still have to leave the County to I pursue some of these opportunities. Net migration loss in the retired age group (65 and over) is harder to explain; perhaps the well-known trend of retirees in the north moving south has I contributed to this loss. The largest gain through migration was reported in the 25 to 29 year age group. This group is commonly involved in household I formation and the building or buying of new homes. TABLE 4-20 I MIGRATION BY AGE MILITARY STATUS AND COLLEGE ATTENDANCE DAUPHIN COUNTY - 1975-1980 I Aqe Group In-miqrants Out-miqrants Net Miqration 5 to 9 3,304 3,185 119 10 to 14 2; 655 2,498 157 I 15 to 19 1,936 3,748 -1812 20 to 24 5,549 6,413 -864 25 to 29 7,034 6,216 818 I 30 to 34 4,636 5,073 --437 35 to 44 3,489 3,912 -423 45 to 54 1,664 1,845 -181 I 55 to 64 1,313 1,587 -274 65 and over 1; 737 2,649 -912 TOTAL 33,317 37,126 -3809 1 Armed Forces 1,026 1,680 -654 in 1975 or 1980 College in 1975 6,629 6,018 611 I or 1980 SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1980 Census of Population, Gross Miqration for Counties: 1975 - 1980 (Supplementary Report) I Where are the in-migrants to the County moving to? Table 4- 21 shows total in-migration by municipality for the 1975 - 1980 I period. The highest number of in-migrants (6,676) was reported by Harrisburg City, as would be expected for its large population

4-31 I I I base. Other municipalities with large increases in in-migration were those which also had higher total population increases, indicating a significant proportion of the increase being due to I positive net migration for those municipalities (e.g. Derry, Lower Paxton, and Susquehanna Townships). I TABLE 4-21 TOTAL IN-MIGRATION: 1980 BY MUNICIPALITY I Dauphin County Persons 5 years and over not livinq in the County in 1975 I Berrysburg Borough 43 Conewago Township 709 Dauphin Borough 87 I Derry Township 4626 E. Hanover Township 477 Elizabethville Boro. 160 Gratz Borough 45 I Halifax Borough 75 Halifax Township 163 Harrisburg City 6676 1 Highspire Borough 413 Humelstown Borough 526 Jackson Township 147 Jefferson Township 16 I Londonderry Township 707 Lower Paxton Township 5945 Lower Swatara Township 1348 I Lykens Borough 1'1 4 Lykens Township 210 Middle Paxton Township 678 I Middletown Borough 1754 Mifflin Township 43 Millersburg Borough 198 Paxtang Borough 109 I Penbrook Borough 411 Pillow Borough 45 Reed Township 45 I Royalton Borough 60 Rush Township 36 S. Hanover Township 427 Steelton Borough 379 I Susquehanna Township 2715 Swatara Township 2295 Upper Paxton Township 281 I Washington Township 120 Wayne Township 70 W. Hanover Township 603 I Wiconisco Township 42 Williams Township 67 Williamstown Borough 155 I TOTAL 33317 SOURCE: U.S. Census, Census of Population and Housinq, 1980-STF-3 I Estimated Population Growth 4-32 I 1

In view of the developing growth patterns caused by the recent strong economic development in Dauphin County and the entire Tri- I County region, it would be useful to identify which municipalities have been the fastest and slowest growing (in terms of population increase) since the last census. Table 4-22 lists the estimated I population growth by municipality in Dauphin County from 1980 - 1989, and Map 4-2 graphically illustrates the same information using grouped categories. I The 1989 population estimates were made by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and based on building permit data. The estimates were calculated by adding up the total number of new 1 dwelling units on building permits from 1980-1989, multiplying this total by an estimate of the number of persons per dwelling unit. This gives the total number of new residents expected during 1980 - 1989, and is then added to the 1980 population to get the I estimated 1989 population. It was assumed that the number of persons per dwelling unit was equal to the same figure for 1980, minus -2, to account for decreasing household size. It should be I noted that this method calculates population growth based upon the estimated number of new residents, and therefore does not take into account factors which would account for population loss, such as migration. However, it is anticipated that net population loss due 1 to migration will be small in the 1990 Census, considering the recent economic growth in the area as well as the construction of new housing units in the City and Boroughs which experienced I population decline in the 1970's. Other factors will influence the actual population figures for I the decade, such as a slowing of growth in municipalities with a moratorium on on-lot sewage systems imposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Resources (e.g. East, South and West Hanover Townships). I In terms of absolute number of new people, it is estimated that Lower Paxton Township (6,189 new residents) grew the fastest I out of the 40 municipalities in the County from 1980 - 1989. This is consistent with the large volume of development plans submitted in the Township in recent years. Derry Township (2,826), Susquehanna Township (2,614), and Swatara Townships (2,558) all are I expected to have added significant numbers to their population. The fifth highest total is shown by the City of Harrisburg, with an anticipated increase of over 2,000 new residents over the time I period, according to the building permit data. When looking at percentage increase, the municipalities with I the highest estimated population growth during the 1980's are anticipated to be Wayne Township (39.7%), Williams Township (32.2%), East Hanover Township (27.9%) and Jackson Township (25.6%). The smaller population bases of these more rural I Townships result in larger figures in terms of percentages; still, growth of this magnitude is significant and can result in added burden on Township facilities and services. 1 I 4-33 I I

TABLE 4-22 I ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH BY MUNICIPALITY I Dauphin County 1980 - 1989 Estimated Estimated 1980 Estimated* Increase % Increase Municipality POP. 1989 POP. 1980-1989 1980-1989 I Berrysburg Borouqh 447 447 0 0.0 Conewago Township 2,471 3,038 567 22.9 Dauphin Borough 901 913 12 1.3 I Derry Township 18,115 20,941 2,826 15.6 E. Hanover Township 3,574 4,571 997 27.9 Elizabethville Boro. 1,531 1,542 11 0.7 I Gratz Borough 678 761 83 12.2 Halifax Borough 909 1,007 98 10.8 Halifax Township 2,943 3,631 688 23.4 Harrisburg City 53,264 55,361 2,097 3.9 I Highspire Borough 2,959 3,200 241 8.1 Hummelstown Borough 4,267 4,599 332 7.8 Jackson Township 1,568 1,953 385 25.6 1 Jefferson Township 340 411 71 20.9 Londonderry Township 5,138 5,870 732 14.2 Lower Paxton Township 34,830 41,019 6,189 17.8 Lower Swatara Township 6,772 8,316 1,544 22.8 I Lykens Borough 2,181 2,251 70 3.2 Lykens Township 1,138 1,283 145 12.7 Middle Paxton Township 4,745 5,547 802 16.9 I Middletown Borough 10,122 10,505 383 3.8 Mifflin Township 553 617 64 11.6 Millersburg Borough 2,770 2,976 206 7.4 Paxtang Borough 1,649 1,652 3 0.2 I Penbrook Borough 3,006 3,044 38 1.3 Pillow Borough 359 379 20 5.6 Reed Township 289 337 48 16.6 I Royalton Borough 981 1,063 82 8.4 Rush Township 212 220 8 3.8 S. Hanover Township 4,046 4,941 895 22.1 I Steelton Borough 6,484 6,801 317 4.9 Susquehanna Township 18,034 20,648 2,614 14.5 Swatara Township 18,796 21,354 2,558 13.6 Upper Paxton Township 3,435 3,930 495 14.4 1 Washington Township 1,734 2,090 356 20.5 Wayne Township 698 975 277 39.7 W. Hanover Township 6,115 7,244 1,129 18.5 I Wiconisco Township 1,566 (1,566) ** (0) ** (0.0) ** Williams Township 1,033 1,366 333 32.2 Williamstown Borough 1,664 1,702 38 2.3 I COUNTY TOTALS 232,317 * See text page 4-35 for an explanation of the method used to I estimate the 1989 population. ** Data N/A. I 4-34 I 1

The estimates indicate that very slow population growth (less I than one percent) can be expected in Berrysburg Borough (0.0% increase), Paxtang Borough (0.2%), and Elizabethville Borough (0.7%). The highly developed nature of most of these Boroughs I limits population expansion without annexation. SUMMARY I As the 1990 Census quickly approaches, it will be interesting to see whether the improved economy and increased construction levels of the 1980's will result in a significant increase in the I population growth rate of the previous decade. The next census will also reveal whether the actual population growth introduced any changes in the socioeconomic charac-teristics, composition, and I distribution of the population. It is recommended that the information in this chapter be updated when the population data from the 1990 Census becomes available. I The Age Composition and Male-Female distribution patterns show no peculiarities and generally follow the national and regional trends. Dauphin County displays more racial and ethnic diversity I than Cumberland and especially Perry County, with the City of Harrisburg having the greatest diversity within the region. School enrollment of Dauphin County residents declined at the I nursery school and elementary level and basically stayed the same at the high school level, and rose at the college levels, between 1980 and 1990. Total enrollment dropped by 4.7 percent. Regional 1 and national trends account for some of the differences, for example, the decrease in students at the elementary level as the "tail end" of the "baby boom" generation was moving through the high school group during that period of time, and the increase in I working mothers affecting the nursery school enrollment. Schools

I in portions of the County that are expected to experience the most population growth will see a large growth in enrollment. Among 1 immigrants the largest age group is 25-29 years, many of them are young families with children. Therefore, the amount and distribution of immigrants will have a substantial effect on the I school systems of the County in the next decade. The household characteristics and marital status of the population will probably continue to follow the national and state 1 trends. The number of persons per family and household will drop slightly before stabilizing. I As the population increases within the County, the labor force will also grow while the occupational characteristics change somewhat. An even higher percentage of women will be involved in the civilian labor force than 1980. Employment possibilities I should expand in the professional, service, and retail industries, to serve the growing population. The number of persons employed in agriculture will drop as farms are sold or subdivided for building I lots. The construction industry should remain healthy, due to continual demand for new housing units. I 4-35 I

The average commuting time of employed residents is likely to 1 remain fairly stable. The County itself contains many large employment centers, and job opportunities are abundant within the entire Harrisburg metropolitan area. I Personal and family income are dependent on so many other factors that it is difficult to speculate on how the anticipated population growth will affect these statistics. Income increases I will probably maintain pace with inflation rate of the national economy. Poverty levels are expected to remain highest within Harrisburg City and the upper Dauphin area, where unemployment I remains relatively high.

In terms of geographic ’ distribution of growth, the suburbanizing Townships of south central Dauphin County (e.g. Lower I Paxton, Derry, West Hanover, Londonderry, and Swatara) have had the highest numerical increases in population. Also significant is percentage growth in some of the rural Townships. It is anticipated I that these growth patterns will continue to be reflected in the 1990 Census. I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I . 4-36 I CHAPTER 5 ECONOMIC BASE The purpose of this chapter is to identify and analyze the economic base, or economic activities and resources of Dauphin County. Focusing on the capacity of the County to provide goods and services, this economic base study will provide a general trends assessment of Dauphin County. In addition, export industries, whose outside demands impact the area’s employment and incomes, will be mentioned, along with occupations, places of work, unemployment, agricultural economy, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, selected services, and economic development. These factors will be reviewed to provide a summary indication of the economic trends and status of Dauphin County. i HISTORICAL TRENDS Early inhabitants of Dauphin County lived along the Susquehanna River and utilized its abundant resources for their initial business enterprises and industries. In the mountainous I and wooded northern Dauphin County, lumber mills and construction companies developed, taking advantage of the plentiful supply of lumber. Later, hosiery mills, canning operations, tanneries, dairies, and coal mining operations developed within the confines of northern Dauphin County. Southern Dauphin County’s geography was quite different, as was the early types of industries. The rolling hills and flat lands were ideal for farming, so the inhabitants plowed, planted, and harvested the fertile land. In addition, brownstone quarries I. developed around Hummelstown, brick making companies, shoe factories, stove making operations, and furniture companies soon dotted the pastoral countryside. Also, Milton Hershey moved to the I area and developed his extensive Hershey chocolate industry in the lower section of Dauphin County. Dauphin County’s ideal geographical location along the Susquehanna River and closeness to the early Indian pathways through Pennsylvania aided in the areas evolution into an transportation center. The Pennsylvania Canal’s route along the wide river enabled it to become a large shipment center for lumber and other commodities. Later, the Pennsylvania and Reading railroads would locate in Dauphin County, helping it to earn the reputation as the largest railroad center in the world. In the latter part of the twentieth century numerous turnpikes were paved, making it a convenient route for trucks and others traversing the countryside. Today these transportation industries still flourish 1 throughout most of the County. The area’s centralized location in the state also enabled it to become the seat of the state capitol. Commercial activity and industrial development increased following the growth of the city as a government and transportation center.

5-1 REGIONAL INFLUENCES Dauphin County is affected by economic activities of the contiguous Cumberland and Perry Counties. The Tri-County Region coincides with the Harrisburg metropolitan area. Certain features of past and present development are important to the economic growth of this Region. These features are unique to the area, yet are not isolated from national economic and business cycles. The strategic crossroads location, at a point where the Susquehanna River emerges from the Appalachian Mountain ridges into the junction of five valleys is important. This location made the Harrisburg Metropolitan Area the hub of Central Pennsylvania’s Colonial trading activity. This strategic location spurred Harrisburg’s rapid development as a transportation center. Four interstates and six other U.S. highways traverse the region, making it very accessible to the major metropolitan areas of the Northeast Atlantic Region. Historically the railroad industry has been a vital part of Harrisburg’s economy, with Conrail and AMTRAK still serving the area. Two airports are located in the region: The Harrisburg International Airport and the Capital City Airport. A number of large trucking companies have also recognized the advantages of locating in the area and have built large terminals and warehouses in the Harrisburg Area. The natural resources are abundant. Large areas of prime farmland exist in all three counties, creating very productive ’ farms where land is still available in large tracts. This same land is also excellent for most types of residential and commercial , development. Some of the larger portions of woodland provide timber resources. Mineral resources include coal, iron, iron-ore, limestone, sandstone , and shale. None of these exist in large enough quantities to allow extensive mining. There is some coal mining in northeastern Dauphin County and limestone mining in the valleys of the region. Mining of ore was mostly done during the colonial and industrial periods. In 181 2 Harrisburg was selected as the State Capital, and more recently federal military installations were added, establishing the region as a major employer of government workers. The State Government is the largest employer in the Harrisburg area, drawing employees from all corners of the Commonwealth. The Navy Ship Parts Control Center and the New Cumberland Army Depot are the second and fifth largest employers in the region, respectively. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS~ Employment by Industry Table 5-1 illustrates the distribution of employment in Dauphin County by industry, as reported in the 1980 and 1990 U.S.

5-2 Censuses of Housing and Population. The largest percentage of the employable work force in Dauphin County in 1990 worked in the professional services (22.3 percent of the total). Lower Paxton supplied the highest percentage of these workers (20.9 percent), while Harrisburg City and Derry followed with 18.7 percent and 11.8 percent, respectively. The and wholesale and retail trade categories account for 18.8 percent while manufacturing and industry account for 13.8 percent of Dauphin County’s total. Lower Paxton residents lead the wholesale and retail trade section by providing 20.4 percent of the total, followed by Harrisburg (17.6 percent) and Swatara (9.3 percent). Leading the manufacturing and industry division is Lower Paxton (1 3.5 percent) , Harrisburg (1 2 - 7 percent) and Derry (7.6 percent). Thirteen percent of Dauphin County’s work force opted to work in the public administration field in 1990; 28.2 percent of these people reside in Harrisburg, 19.9 percent in Lower Paxton, and 10.1 percent in Susquehanna. The transportation, communication, and public utilities industries employed eight percent of Dauphin County’s employees. Lower Paxton claimed 18.0 percent of this total, while Harrisburg claimed 17.3 percent and Swatara 8.4 percent. The next industry grouping, finance, insurance, and real estate employed eight (8) percent of Dauphin County’s total. The highest amount of these employees reside in Lower Paxton (22.2 percent) , Harrisburg (21 - 2 percent) , and Susquehanna (9.8 percent) .

The construction industry supports 5.5 percent of the County’s employed persons. Construction workers travel to work each day from Lower Paxton (1 6.4 percent) , Harrisburg ( 15.8 percent) and Swatara (9.2 percent). Business and repair services accounted for 4.4 percent of Dauphin County’s employment in 1990. Harrisburg, Lower Paxton, and Susquehanna Township residents provided 25.4 percent, 19.6 percent, and 8.8 percent of this total, respectively. Harrisburg leads the list of personal, entertainment, and recreation with a figure of 20.2 percent, followed by Lower Paxton ( 14.1 percent) and Derry (1 3.6 percent) . Finally, the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining industries provided one 1.3 percent of Dauphin County’s employment in 1990. Lower Paxton supplied 10.1 percent of this amount, while Lykens Township provided 8.0 percent and 5.3 percent originated in Lower Swatara Township. Table 5-2 compares employment by industry trends from 1980 to 1990 in Dauphin, Cumberland, and Perry Counties, as well as Pennsylvania and the Harrisburg SMSA, according to the 1980 and 1990 Censuses. In 1990 1.3 percent of Dauphin County’s employment group worked in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining operations, while 1.9 percent of Cumberland County and 4.2 percent of Perry County worked in the same area. Approximately 2.4 percent of Pennsylvania’s employed and 2.2 percent of the Harrisburg SMSA also worked in this field.

5-3 TABLE 5-1 .- Employed Persons 16 Years & Over by Industry Dauphin County 1990

Agric. Finance Business Personal Forestry Whole- Insurance and Enter. Fishing Constr- Manufac- sale Retail 8 Real Repair 8 Rec- Prot. Public Municipality Mining uction turing Trans. Comm. Trade Trade Estate Services reation Services Admin. Berrysburg Boro. 11 14 89 16 5 4 16 6 4 22 12 Conewago Twp. 65 86 329 40 55 32 158 32 27 67 239 47 Dauphin Boro. 13 30 70 31 10 26 81 17 15 7 71 64 Derry Twp. 114 264 1,890 320 259 182 1037 442 226 580 21 86 640 East Hanover Twp. 49 133 388 69 41 68 277 43 75 160 232 170 Elizabethville Boro. 7 27 344 22 18 11 84 36 12 23 86 39 Gratz Boro. 18 30 120 11 8 8 33 15 3 12 . 18 25 Halifax Boro. 25 130 23 6 15 51 39 7 2 56 30 Halifax Twp. 57 88 440 71 19 94 78 50 23 28 186 126 Harrisburg City 80 583 3,168 1,001 696 673 261 3 1265 699 787 3984 5582 Highspire Boro. , 86 355 98 48 46 237 72 46 35 245 272 Hummelstown Boro. 6 64 477 124 77 74 371 120 57 143 41 7 180 Jackson Twp. 51 59 242 ' 52 14 24 55 44 11 24 57 53 Jefferson Twp. 10 11 48 14 2 2 17 5 6 3 16 4 Londonderry Twp. 136 172 608 141 185 53 289 103 99 37 343 205 Lower Paxton Twp. 120 906 2,471 1 507 810 2928 1396 683 557 3727 3799 Lower Swatara Twp. 36 95 71 1 323 112 156 51 3 136 65 104 534 499 Lykens Boro. 9 35 41 1 34 17 9 158 37 13 36 71 115 Lykens Twp. 92 27 226 33 2 17 44 14 4 3 36 19 Middle Paxton Twp. 21 180 376 223 49 122 350 172 127 59 393 285 Middletown Boro. 20 159 841 307 328 139 71 0 243 162 149 626 852 Mifflin Twp. 33 26 92 22 3 18 9 7 14 20 Millersburg Boro. 36 504 41 33 26 180 50 16 38 160 43 Paxtang Boro. 3 29 114 49 22 35 129 109 22 32 146 150 Pennbrook Boro. 5 97 166 93 54 49 206 115 92 49 240 313 Pillow Boro. 16 4 57 16 6 33 4 11 9 Reed Twp. 3 10 36 12 4 3 15 10 3 8 6 24 Royalton Boro. 4 29 118 34 23 24 48 15 7 20 59 71 Rush Twp. 4 8 21 5 6 4 8 2 2 2 2 25 South Hanover Twp. 64 120 537 74 49 99 280 102 42 87 444 146 Steelton Boro. 7 105 61 2 155 90 55 474 93 85 105 481 727 SusquehannaTwp. 37 370 876 51 5 305 480 1334 580 243 170 21 39 1521 Swatara Twp. 37 317 1,639 572 260 399 1543 773 336 301 1455 1559 Upper Paxton Twp. 55 97 577 114 19 71 195 101 23 12 253 97 Washington Twp. 59 26 302 35 7 38 78 26 37 19 110 56 Wayne Twp. 20 22 99 24 2 8 27 28 11 6 30 35 West Hanover Twp. 32 222 477 243 18 171 573 228 105 98 523 337 Wiconiscu Twp. 14 24 409 9 17 3 46 17 6 4 59 84 Williams Twp. 10 20 237 19 14 5 38 14 9 12 30 65 Williamstown Boro. 16 20 312 27 6 10 45 16 4 16 70 148

TOTAL COUNTY 1,334 4,656 20,919 6,080 3.390 4.051 15.370 6,564 3,418 3.806 19.777 18.448

SOURCE: US. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing

5- 4 TABLE 5-2 EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION PERSONS 16 YEAR AND OLDER: 1980 AND 1990

DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA HARRISBURGSMSA CUMBERLAND COUNTY PERRY COUNTY %CHANGE 46 CHANGE % CHANGE %CHANGE %CHANGE INDUSTRYGROUP 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990

Agriculture, Forestry B 1,334 1,508 13 136,117 129,207 -5.1 3,888 6,496 67.1 1,850 1,961 1 704 837 18.9 Fisheries 8 Mining

Construction 4,656 6,666 43.2 240,162 331,161 37.9 9,293 17,245 85.6 3,656 5,589 52.9 981 1,754 78.8

Manufacturing 20,919 16594 -20.7 1,420,837 1,087,220 -23.4 41,235 49,406 19.8 16,598 14,395 -13.3 3,718 3#177 -14.6

Transportation.Communi. 9,470 9,907 4.6 347,197 376,741 8.5 18,316 23,062 25.9 7.061 7,964 12.9 1,785 1,949 92 cations and Public Utilities

Wholesale and Retail 19,421 22,643 16.6 942,676 1,166,867 23.8 39,115 60,678 55.1 17.014 22,295 31 2,680 4,141 54.5 Trade

Finance, Insurance B 6,564 9,791 49.2 256.725 351,519 36.9 12,914 21.859 69.3 5,555 8,339 50.1 795 1,566 96.9 Real Estate

Business B Repair 3,418 5,241 53.3 186,589 236,825 26.9 6,627 12,272 85.2 2,853 4,472 56.7 356 849 130.5 Services

Personal Entertainment 3,806 4,854 27.5 161,446 194,955 20.8 6.181 11.069 79.1 2,132 3,176 49 243 397 63.4 & Recreation Services

Professionaland Related 19,777 26,832 35.7 1,011,813 1,341,431 32.6 38,402 65,577 70.1 16,584 23,099 39.3 2,041 3,335 63.4 Services

Public Administration 18,448 16,211 -12.1 227.939 218,606 -4.1 18.448 31,065 68.4 11,023 10,400 -5.7 1,734 2,071 19.4

107,813 120,247 11.5 4,931,501 5,434,532 10.2 194,419 298,729 53.6 84,326 101,690 28.2 15,037 20,076 33.5

SOURCE: US. CENSUS, CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOU,SING, 1980,1990. The highest percentage of construction workers in this ensemble originated in Perry County (8.7 percent). The state had a total of 6.1 percent, the Harrisburg SMSA followed with 5.8 percent, and both Dauphin and Cumberland maintained 5.5 percent of these workers. Manufacturing employers combined to form 20.0 percent of the workforce in 1990. This broke down into 13.8 percent from Dauphin County, 14.2 percent from Cumberland County, 15.8 percent from Perry County, and 16.5 percent from the , Harrisburg SMSA. Transportation statistics were as follows: 8.2 I percent from Dauphin, 7.8 percent from Cumberland, 9.7 percent from Perry, 7.7 percent from the Harrisburg SMSA, and a total of 7 percent from the entire state. Wholesale and retail accounted for 19.1 percent of the state’s employed that year, as well as 18 percent from Dauphin, 20.1 from ’ the Harrisburg SMSA, 20.2 percent from Cumberland and 17.8 percent from Perry County. The Harrisburg SMSA and Cumberland County both 1 maintained the highest percent (6.6) of employees in the finance, ’ insurance and real estate industries, while Dauphin was next with 6.1 percent. Perry County and the state followed with 5.3 percent and 5.2 percent of the total, respectively. The state figure of 3.8 percent topped the list of persons employed in business and repair services, and Cumberland County and the Harrisburg SMSA shared the next level at 3.4 percent. Dauphin County reported a total of 3.2 percent and Perry County finished the inventory with 2.4 percent. Personal entertainment and recreational service employees in Dauphin, Perry and Cumberland Counties claimed 3.5, 1.6, and 2.5 percent of their respective county’s totals, while 3.3 percent of the state worked in these careers. Harrisburg SMSA residents occupy 3.2 percent of this total profile, The number of people employed in professional and related services was high in all of these geographic locations. The state reported an amount of 20.5 percent while Dauphin, Cumberland, Perry and the Harrisburg SMSA declared totals of 18.3, 19.7, 13.6, and 19.8 percents, respectively. Finally, the public administration vocation sponsored high numbers in Dauphin, Cumberland and Perry Counties, as well as the Harrisbura SMSA (17.1, 13.1, and 11 -5,and 9.5 percents, respectively), but lower quantities in the state (4.6 percent). These last figures reflect the location of the state government facilities and-their closeness to these counties. The pie charts in Exhibit 5-1 compare Dauphin County’s employment by industry figures to those of Pennsylvania. Employment by Occupation

The 1990 U.S. Census Employment by Occupation data profiles significant statistics relating to characteristics of the individual worker. These figures reflect the educational level, vocational training, and work experience of the work force. Table 5-3 displays information by municipality for six standard occupations. In addition, the male/female breakdown is presented.

5-6 The results of the table indicate that the largest proportion of workers in Dauphin County are employed as technicians, sales, administrative support, clerical, or related support (35.1 percent). The next largest occupational category appears to be the managerial and professional group (27.1 percent). Operators and laborers comprise approximately 14.8 percent of the work force and service related occupations account for 12.3 percent of the total. Precision, production, craft, and repair accounted for 9.8 of the

I total. The remaining one (1) percent is employed in farming, forestry and fishing occupations. Table 5-4 compares the occupational profiles of Dauphin County with those of Cumberland and Perry Counties. Dauphin and Cumberland are quite similar in all sections, while Perry varies greatly from both in each vocational group. The classifications of "Managerial/Professional" and "Technical, Sales, and Administra- tion" are frequently referred to as "white collar occupations" when combined. These statistics are high in both Dauphin and Cumberland, but not in Perry County. One reason for this may be the fact that a regional market has emerged in the Harrisburg area, partially due to the its location as the seat of state government activities in Pennsylvania. These facilities require significant numbers of both categories to complete daily operations, and these facilities are easily within commuting distance for residents of Dauphin and Cumberland Counties. In addition numerous businesses and support networks had emerged in this region, and they also require many employees.

5-7 TABLE 5-3 OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990

TOTAL EMPLOYED EMPLOYEE PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OVER BY OCCUPATION PRECISION TECHNICAL/ FARMING PROD. , OPERATORS MANAGERIAL/ SALES FORESTRY CRAFT AND MALE FEMALE PROFESSIONAL & ADM. SERVICE & FISHING & REPAIR LABORERS

BERRYSBURG BOR. 116 74 20 48 15 - 1 48 58 CONEWAGO TWP. 861 647 341 461 178 64 21 5 249 DAUPHIN BOR. 21 6 196 81 135 66 2 42 87 DERRY TWP. 4997 4223 3526 2859 1147 49 629 1010 EAST HANOVER TWP. 1287 1078 644 687 247 60 347 380 ELIZABETHVILLE BOR. 376 331 131 177 81 9 128 181 GRATZ BOR. 193 152 29 74 51 10 46 135 HALIFAX BOR. 199 225 46 116 58 2 69 133 HALIFAX TWP. 1075 797 308 629 153 30 388 364 HARRISBURG CITY 11 547 11 354 5201 8030 4306 37 1776 3551 HIGHSPIRE BOR. 71 2 606 200 563 148 4 99 304 HUMMELSTOWN BOR. 1064 1016 449 730 230 3 287 381 JACXSON TWP. 540 437 127 258 78 44 181 289 JEFFERSON TWP. 110 80 35 45 18 3 35 54 LONDONDERRY TWP. 1469 1185 464 836 288 16 503 547 LOWER PAXTON TWP. 11728 10801 8020 8662 1970 120 1604 21 53 LOWER SWATARA TWP. 21 44 1663 802 1474 481 87 41 2 551 LYKENS BOR. 463 395 114 231 60 6 172 275 LYXENS TWP. 31 9 230 38 88 57 97 78 191 MIDDLE PAXTON TWP. 1601 1281 755 882 41 5 46 432 352 MIDDLETOWN BOR. 2280 21 92 971 1506 731 31 395 838 MIFFLIN TWP. 198 123 39 65 21 55 43 98 MILLERSBURG BOR. 664 590 226 435 116 5 163 309 PAXTANG BOR. 433 405 31 8 263 90 4 71 92 PENBROOX BOR. 754 6 80 271 623 163 6 133 238 PILLOW BOR. 83 71 18 24 25 4 20 63 REED TWP. 77 62 25 39 33 2 18 22 ROYALTON BOR. 290 251 48 185 105 3 71 129 RUSH TWP. 56 35 26 20 5 0 20 20 SOUTH HANOVER TWP. 1363 1154 84 5 800 160 47 323 342 399 STEELTON TWP. 1221 1361 ~ 473 1078 430 13 189 SUSQLTEHANNA TWP. 5096 . 4536 3675 3571 866 65 61 2 843 SWATARA TWP. 5533 4603 2530 4024 1282 54 991 1255 UPPER PAXTON TWP. 982 733 354 388 144 58 322 449 WASHINGTON TWP. 54 5 387 131 230 67 40 123 31 1 WAYNE TWP. 242 188 71 141 50 12 74 82 WEST HANOVER TWP. 1922 1599 974 1339 349 48 464 347 WICONISCO TWP. 336 288 79 156 48 4 91 246 WILLIAMS TWP. 291 21 4 63 130 26 3 109 174 WILLIAMSTOWN BOR. 342 309 65 152 71 0 113 250 TOTAL 63,695 56,552 32,533 42,153 14,829 1,144 11,836 17,752 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A

5-8 TABLE 5-4 OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR DAUPHIN, ,CUMBERLAND,& PERRY COUNTIES, 1990 1990 Dauphin Cumberland Perry Male 63695 53.0 53.3 56.6 Female 56552 47.0 46.7 43.4 Managerial/Professional 32533 27.1 27.2 16.2 Technical/Sales and Administration 421 53 35.0 34.6 30.8 Service 14829 12.3 11.2 11.6 Farming, Forestry and Fishing 1144 1 .o 1.7 3.5 Precision Production Craft and Repair 11836 9.8 9.2 15.0 Operators & Laborers 17752 14.8 16.1 22.9

TOTALS 120247 100.0 100.0 100.0 SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1990, STF-3A.

Emgloyment by Place of Work In analyzing any county’s economic base, it is important to include a segment explaining where the residents work. A synopsis of this data pertaining to Dauphin County residents is illustrated in Table 5-5. Of the 97,971 employees that reported to work, 79,564 worked within the county. Only 345 people of those that reported worked outside of Pennsylvania. More than twice as many residents work outside their own municipality, and most of these people work in Harrisburg. The explanation for these figures is that many residents live outside of Harrisburg, but work within the city. State government facilities attract many workers from the city, surrounding townships, municipalities, and even other counties, so there is an extensive commuting population.

5-9 TABLE 5-5 WORK LOCATIONS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY RESIDENTS 1990 Census

MUNICIPAL Work In Municipality Of Residence 30 , 240 I Work Outside Municipality Of Residence 88 ,662 COUNTY Work In County 93 ,606 Work Outside County 24,651 STATE ' Work In Pennsylvania 118,257 Work Outside Pennsylvania 645 SMSA Work in SMSA 111,132 Work In Harrisburg 38 ,983 Work Outside Harrisburg 72,149 Work Outside SMSA 7 ,770

Not Reported 7,125

Total Number Of Residents Reporting To Workplace 126,027 SOURCE: U.S.Census, Work And Travel To Work Characteristics, . 1990.

Personal Income By Occupation

Table 5-6 lists the average wages earned annually by Dauphin County residents from 1986 to 1988. The transportation/public utilities industry appears to yield the highest average salary while agriculture, forestry, and fishing offer the lowest average wage.

Dauphin County's average annual salary by industry for 1984 is compared to these figures in Cumberland and Perry Counties. Again, the transportation and public utilities industries register the highest average salary.

5-1 0 TABLE 5-6 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY INDUSTRY DAUPHIN COUNTY 1986-1 988

INDUSTRY 1986 1987 1988 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing $1 1 ,981 N/A N/A Mining 25,567 N/A N/A Construction 24,177 $25 ,436 $27 ,330 Manufacturing 25,123 25,311 27,504 Transportation 27,731 28 ,382 29,224 Wholesale Trade 21 ,821 23,574 24 ,837 Retail Trade 10,443 10,800 11,234 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 19,060 20,412 21,288 Services 15,278 16,463 17,616 Government 22 ,402 20 ,066 24,519 DAUPHIN COUNTY TOTAL 19,370 20,158 21 ,279 SOURCE: Annual Planning Information Report For Harrisburg- Lebanon-Carlisle, Department of Labor and Industry and Bureau of Research and Statistics, Fall 1989.

TABLE 5-7 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY INDUSTRY DAUPHIN, CUMBERLAND, AND PERRY COUNTIES 1989

INDUSTRY DAUPHIN CUMBERLAND PERRY Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing N/A $21,023 $ 9,787 Contract Construction $26 ,752 24 ,268 16,577 Manufacturing 29,183 24 , 568 12,510 Transportation, Public Utilities 29 , 868 29 , 092 14,716 Wholesale Trade 25 , 332 29,363 17,761 Retail Trade 11,270 10,898 9,671 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 22,478 22 ,782 14,333 Services 18,313 19,913 10,040 SOURCE: Annual Planning Information Report for Harrisburg, Lebanon, Carlisle MSA, Department of Labor and Industry and Bureau of Research and Statistics, Fiscal Year 1991 .

Unemployment

A problem that almost every county faces and must solve to remain economically healthy is unemployment. Unemployment rates are often used as economic indicators, since they reflect the

5-1 1 demand for labor which is driven by a particular economy. However, there are too many other factors that affect unemployment to qualify it as a sole indicator of economic strength. Unemployment rates can be affected by seasonal jobs, State and national trends and personnel decisions by large employers. Table 5-8 shows that Dauphin County’s unemployment rate was relatively low in 1970, but more than doubled in 1980. By 1988 this figure began to decline, but increased again during 1990 while the Country was in the midst of a recession. The unemployment rate in Dauphin County is normally lower than the state rate and the rate for Perry County, but higher than that of Cumberland County and the Harrisburg SMSA. The higher unemployment rate of the state reflects the large urban core areas which normally exhibit very high rates. Dauphin and Cumberland Counties exhibit low rates because of the large employment centers in and surrounding the Harrisburg Metropolitan Area. Since Perry does not have any large employment centers, more time is required for the unemployed to find new job placements, producing a comparatively higher unemployment rate.

TABLE 5-8 UNEMPLOYMENT TRENDS 1970, 1980, 1988, 1990 (Unadj us ted) 1970 1980 1988 1990 Pennsylvania 3.7% 7.4% 5.1% 5.4% Dauphin County 2.2% 5.1% 4.4% 4.6% 1 Cumberland County 2.1% 3.7% 3.2% 3.6% Perry County 2.9% 6.4% 4.9% 5.8% Harrisburg SMSA 2.3% 4.6% 4.0% 4.4% SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990; Pennsylvania Office of Employment Security, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.

Unemployment rate trends in the County follow the regional, state and national trends. Table 5-9 delves into the total population, workforce, employment, and unemployment figures for Dauphin County and Pennsylvania for 1984, 1985, and 1986. Again, Dauphin County’s average unemployment rate appears lower than that of the state. This rate increased from 1984 to 1985, but remained level in 1986. The table also shows that employment was strong at all levels during the 1970 census, was faltering during the 1980 -censusand was rebounding in 1988. The high unemployment rates in 1980 reflect a major recession which was gripping the nation at that time. The year 1970 marked a high point in the national economic cycle, while 1988 became a time of vigorous business activity. These national economic trends appear to have some influence on Dauphin County’s unemployment rate.

5-1 2 TABLE 5-9 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE DATA FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA 1985-1 991

Dauphin Pennsylvania 1985 1986 1991 1985 1986 1991

Population 236,880 235,633 237,813 11,863,674 11,891,258 11,881,643 Civilian Labor Force 118,944 113,943 126,031 5,393,600 5,272,700 5,779,327 Unemployment 7,455 7,210 5,784 453,900 505 ,400 344,795 Unemployment Rate 6.3 6.3 5.5 8.4 9.6 6.9

Employment 111,489 106,733 120,247 4,939,700 4,767,300 5,434,532 SOURCE : Annual Planninq Information Report, Fall 1989, Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Research & Statistics. Pennsylvania County Plannfnq Kit, 1992 Supplement, Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Research and Statistics.

INDUSTRIES Asricultural Economy The geographic profile of Dauphin County revealed that the northern section is dominated by poorly drained, shallow, rocky soils and steep sloped ridges. The soils are often sandstone, siltstone and shale derived. The valleys in this region generally possess moderate to well drained, deep fertile soils and shallow slopes. These soils are normally limestones, which are well suited for agricultural uses. The southern portion of the county is mainly comprised of limestone and has proven to be a productive agricultural zone. The United States Bureau of the Census defines a farm as "any place that had, or normally would have had, a total value of sales of agricultural products during the census year of $1000 or more." As of 1992, 580 farms were registered in Dauphin County. This number is significantly lower than the 801 registered in 1978, but the average size increased slightly to 156 acres from 143. The average percent of land occupied by farms in Dauphin County also decreased - from 34.6 to 26.9 in 1978 and 1992, respectively. Table 5-10 enumerates these statistics and related figures. Dauphin County participates in Act 149 of 1988 - the Farmland Preservation Act which amended the Agricultural Area Security Law of 1981 - The Act sets up a fund to purchase development rights to farms included in Agricultural Security Areas. The purpose of the Act is to perserve farmlands for agricultural production. This Act: o encourages farmers to make long-term commitment to agriculture by offering them financial incentives and security of land use.

5-1 3 o protects farming operations from oncompatible nonfarm land uses that may render farming impractible.

o assures conservation of prime and productive farm alnds, making 1 the farmer more competitive and protecting the agricultural economy of the state. Participation in the Agricultural Security Program requires that a municipality offer a total of 500 or more acres of land used for agricultural production of crops, livestock and livestock products under the ownership of one or more persons for designation as an agricultural security area. In return, various protections are offered by the Act as follows:

A.) prohibits municipalities with Agricultural Security Areas from defining normal farming operation as a public nuisance; B.) forbids unreasonably restricting farm practices or farm structures; and C.) requires local jurisdiction to encourage the continuity, development and viability of agriculture with the area. Also, the Act has provisions by which the State or County can purchase the development rights separately or jointly and create an Agricultural Conservation Easement - an interest in land which represents the right to prevent the development or improvement of that land for any purpose other than agricultural production. It may be granted in perpetuity (forever) or for a term of 25 years. Presently, the Commonwealth is providing four (4) matching dollars for every dollar allocated by the County to purchase the transfer of development rights from qualified farms and their owners. Currently, thirteen (1 3) municipalities participate in the Agricultural Security Program in Dauphin County. The thirteen (1 3) municipalities are as follows: Conewago, East Hanover, Halifax, Jackson, Londonderry, Lykens, Middle Paxton, Mifflin, South Hanover, Washington, West Hanover, and Upper Paxton Townships. The only Borough participating in the Program at this time is Gratz. Approxiamately 587 land owners in the County are active participates in the Program with an estimated 45,750 acres of agricultural land under the provisions of the Agricultural Security Area Program. Dauphin County has also been active in purchasing Agricultural Conservation Easements since 1991. Fourteen (14) farmsteads have been purchased in the County to date with Upper Paxton Township having six (6) of the total easements. Other municipalities having easements purchased include Jackson, Londonderry, Lykens, and Mifflin Townships. The fourteen (14) farmsteads constitute a total of 1,628.28 acres that the County has designated specifically for agricultural purposes.

5-1 4 TABLE 5-1 0 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY 1978, 1982, 1987, AND 1992

1978 1982 1987 1992

Number of Farms 801 776 675 580 Number of Farms with Total Sales over $1 0,000 353 382 342 31 1 Total. Acreage in Farms 114,730 112,821 101,692 90 ,298 Average Size of Farms (Acres) 143 145 151 156 Value of Land and Buildings - Average per Farm 205 ,095 339 ,874 286 ,975 471 ,188

Average per Acre 1,489 2 ,285 2,017 2,997 Percent of Land Area 34.6 33.4 30.1 26.9 SOURCE: U.S- CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE, 1978, 1982, 1987 AND 1992.

Manufacturinq The historic trend in manufacturing has been a fairly steady decline in the number of establishments, at all levels. The Tri- County Region has experienced a marginal decline of 4.7% since 1954 in the number of manufacturing establishments, while the State has experienced a more significant decline of 11 -7%. Although the number of establishments is decreasing, the average number of employees per establishment has increased in the Tri-County Region. Recent trends have encouraged the move towards larger scale industrial operations. The resulting increases in employment per establishment has to some extent off-set the loss of total manufacturing establishments. The net effect, however, has been an overall lose of manufacturing jobs. The most recent years seem to indicate that the number of manufacturing establishments is not only stabilizing, but slightly increasing in the Tri-County Region.

Table 5-11 reflects a small increase in the overall number of establishments from 1982 to 1992, however, a slight decrease is found in those establishments with 20 or more employees. The total number of employees decreased 12.7% during this time frame, however, the cost of materials, payroll, and the value added by manufacturing (sales receipts minus the cost of manufacture and materials) increased considerably. Twenty-three of the 261.establishments in Dauphin County in 1992 were reaistered as food and kindred products. Another thirteen were listed as apparel and other textile products , while printing and publishing claimed sixty-nine establishments. Five businesses were defined as leather and leather products, three were under the primary metal industries category, twenty-two fabricated

5-1 5 I metal products enterprises, thirty-six machinery outfits, eleven electrical companies, and twelve auxiliary establishments-

~ Like the five year period between 1977 - 1982, we saw small increases in the number of wholesale establishments between 1982 - I 1987 County-wide, however, the Harrisburg SMSA increased 28.8 percent over this time period. Increases of noteworthiness were also seen in the other variables presented. Matter-of-fact we saw an increase of 22.1 percent in paid employees in the County and an increase of 39.3 percent within the Harrisburg SMSA. These significant gains within the wholesale market can most likely be attributred to the major recovery we experienced following the recession of the early 1980’s.

TABLE 5-11 MANUFACTURING STATISTICS FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY 1982, 1987 and 1992

1982 1987 1992 Number of Establishments 254 247 261 Number of Establishments With 20 or More Employees 113 107 98 Number of Employees 260,000 23,100 22,700 Payroll 526,800,000 607,800,000 729,000,000 Value Added by Manufacture 1,102,600,000 1 ,307,300,000 1,449,300,000 Cost of Materials 1,157,200,000 1,269,700,000 1,343,800,000 New Capital Expenditures 99,900,000 71,000,000 160,700,000 SOURCE : U.S. Census, Census of Manufactures, 1982, 1987 and 1992-

Wholesale and Retail Trade Healthy wholesale and retail trade is a vital element of an area’s economy as it generates the movement of money, employment base, and disposable income for the purchase of goods and services. If a diversity of goods and services is readily available within an area, there is less tendency for the local residents to spend their earnings elsewhere, and therefore, it can become to some degree self sufficient. The State, and SMSA, showed considerable gain in the number of wholesale establishments between 1982 and 1987 (10.7% , and 28 8% respectively). Likewise, for these areas , the percentage of wholesale employment opportunities increased significantly (1 1 -9% and 39.3% respectively). In accordance, there were significant gains in payroll and sales over this same time period, although some of the gains were due to inflationary economic trends. Table 5-1 2 outlines the wholesale trade statistics for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and the Harrisburg SMSA for 1982, 1987 and 1992. The overall number of establishments increased slightly 1982 ’ to 1987, which is also the case from 1987 to 1992 in Dauphin County. Increases were seen for the Harrisburg SMSA and throughout Pennsylvania during both five year periods with significant

5-1 6 increases being seen in the first five year increment. The number of paid employees increased in all three geographic areas depicted on the Table. Of the 433 establishments listed for Dauphin County in 1992, 285 of these are defined as durable good producing establishments. The remaining 148 are categorized as nondurable good producers.

TABLE 5-12 WHOLESALE TRADE STATISTICS FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY, HARRISBURG SMSA, AND PENNSYLVANIA 1.982, 1987 and 1992

% Chancre 1982 1987 1992 1987-1 592 DAUPHIN COUNTY Establishments 381 41 4 433 4.6 Sales ($1,000) 1,702,021 2,607,781 4,511,253 73.0 Payroll ($1,000) 108,927 167,483 240 ,402 43.5 Paid Employees 5,950 7 ,264 8 ,201 12.9 HARRISBURG SMSA Establishments 677 872 909 4.2 Sales ($1,000) 3,255,933 5,090,177 7 ,004 ,1 84 37.6 Payroll ($1,000) 1 87,800 316,096 424,152 34.2 Paid Employees 10,053 14,006 15,151 8.2

PENNSYLVANIA Establishments 17,873 19,793 20,230 2.2 Sales ($1,000) 78,446;663, 104,454,301 126,369,92 21 .o Payroll ($1,000) 4,166,721 5,832,479 7,485,376 28.3 Paid Employees 221,346 247 ,599 254,410 2.8 SOURCE : U.S. Census, Census of Wholesale Trade, 1982, 1987 and 1992.

(1) Represents only those establishments with payroll.

Table 5-13 reflects the trends in retail trade in Dauphin County, the Harrisburg SMSA, and Pennsylvania in 5 year increments for 1982, 1987, and 1992. Dauphin County showed a decrease in the number of establishments, however, saw an increase in sales, payroll, and number of paid employees from 1982 to 1987. The Harrisburg SMSA showed an increase in all the listed categories, but the individual proprietorships for the region. Only the partnership category declined in both locations. In the state statistics, increases were reported in the number of establishments, the number of sales, payroll, and paid employees. Individual proprietorships and partnerships are the only areas that exhibited decreases in Pennsylvania.

5-1 7 In 1992 Dauphin County claimed to possess 1,524 retail establishments within its border. The 1992 Census of Retail Trade reported the following totals for the various categories of retail establishments:

Building materials and garden supplies stores 45 General merchandise stores 30 Food stores 162 Automotive dealers 82 Gasoline service stations 111 Apparel and accessory stores 151 Furniture and home furnishings stores 103 Eating and drinking places .473 Drug and proprietary stores 50 Miscellaneous retail stores 31 7 In summary, retail and wholesale trade within Dauphin County provide basic goods to residents living in the County and Harrisburg SMSA, as well as neighboring Cumberland, Perry, and Lebanon Counties. A continued demand for the wide range of goods and services of the area helps to stabilize the employment base in the County.

TABLE 5-1 3 RETAIL TRADE STATISTICS (1) FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY, HARRISBURG SMSA, AND PENNSYLVANIA 1982, 1987 AND 1992

% Chanqe 1982 1987 1992 1987-1 592 DAUPHIN COUNTY ' Establishments 2 ,029 1,508 1,524 1.1 Sales ($1,000) 1,175,790 1,711,994 1,990,833 16.3 , Payroll ($1,000) 130,555 196,696 230,079 17.0 Paid EmRlovees 16,604 19,424 19,827 2.1 Individial- Proprietorships 1,096 530 N/A N/A I Partnerships 130 99 N/A N/A HARRISBURG SMSA Establishments 2,628 3,591 3 , 620 1 .o Sales ($1,000) 2,327,290 4 , 304,010 5,000,798 16.2 Payroll ($1,000) 251 , 596 456,142 566 ,455 24.2 Paid Employees 16,604 47 , 236 48 ,964 3.7 Individual- Proprietorships 2,168 1,263 N/A N/A Partnerships 257 270 N/A N/A PENNSYLVANIA Establishments 64 , 266 70 , 823 71,652 1.2 Sales ($1,000) 49,223,827 71,216,605 87,787,842 23.3 Payroll ($1,000) 5,633,550 8,096,789 10,042,888 24.0 Paid Employees 697 ,826 847,907 861,565 1.6 Individual- Proprietorships 54,312 23 ,745 N/A N/A Partnerships 7,681 5,446 N/A N/A SOURCE : U.S. Census, Census of Retail Trade, 1982, 1987 and 1992. (1) Represents only those establishments with payroll.

5-1 8 Selected Services Establishments described as selected service industries have demonstrated an increase in their numbers in Dauphin County, the Harrisburg SMSA, and in Pennsylvania during the last several years, as presented in Table 5-14. This increase reflects an overall nationwide trend towards the "tertiary sector" or service type industry. Portions of the regional increase can be attributed to the growth of technology development and service industries as well as the growth of state government and related services. The amount of receipts showed a drastic increase in Dauphin County from 1982 to 1987, with an almost 375 percent increase, while the Harrisburg SMSA saw a 103 percent increase and the State a 69 percent increase. The level of payroll almost doubled in the SMSA and gained 76 percent statewide during this time period. All three regions experienced an increase in the amount of paid employees from 1982 to 1987. Dauphin's selected service sector growth trends will continue to expand into the future as will national and regional trends. Dauphin County's population growth may also encourage growth in this area because there is a correlation between the need for human and health services and population trends. Economic Development A discussion of economic development is important to a study of the economic base of a county. Economic development authorities, financial institutions, major employers, and research and development facilities in Dauphin County will all be mentioned in this section. The Economic Development Department researches and promotes new businesses in Dauphin County, and encourages existing ones to prosper. Working with local businesses and governmental bodies, this Department produces useful studies for those interested in developing in the region. Other authorities operating within Dauphin County are the Dauphin County Intermunicipal Solid Waste authority, the Dauphin County General Authority, the Dauphin County Leasing and Improvement Authority, the Dauphin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the Dauphin County Hospital Authority, and the Dauphin County Industrial Development Authority. In addition to these authorities that promote and assist business activities within DauDhin County, there are numerous financial institutions operatind in the CoGnty. Table 5-1 5 lists the major financial institutions currently in operation. Table 5- 16 shows the total loans and leases, assets, deposits, and equity capital as reported in Dauphin County in December of 1987, as well as June and December of 1988. Increases were steadily reported in total assets, deposits, and equity capital, but fluctuated in the amount of loans and leases.

5-1 9 TABLE 5-14 , SELECTED SERVICE INDUSTRY STATISTICS (1) FOR DAUPHIN COUNTY, HARRISBURG SMSA, AND PENNSYLVANIA 1982, 1987 and 1992

% Change 1982 1987 1992 1987-1 992 DAUPHIN COUNTY Establishments N/A I ,578 1,746 N/A Receipts ($1,000) 184,579 876,545 1,225,902 374.9 Payroll ($1,000) N/A 303 ,024 440 ,029 N/A Paid Employees 14,458 26,435 20 ,587 41 -3 Individual Proprietorships N/A 644 N/A N/A Partnerships N/A 201 N/A N/A

HARRISBURG SMSA Establishments 2,196 3,376 3,831 53.7 Sales ($1,000) 807,883 1,646,852 2,412,702 103.1 Payroll ($1,000) 301,086 601,965 940,627 99.9 Paid Employees 22 ,391 37,133 43,411 65.8 Individual Proprietorships N/A 1,519 N/A N/A Partnerships N/A 380 N/A N/A PENNSYLVANIA Establishments 55 ,022 70,071 77 ,839 27.4 Sales ($1,000) 19,083,092 32,232,174 49,382,550 68.9 Payroll ($1,000) 7,045,264 12,407,825 18,740,764 76.1 Paid Employees 485 , 850 693 ,760 797 ,051 42.8 Individual Proprietorships N/A 29,926 N/A N/A Partnerships N/A 6,449 N/A N/A

SOURCE : U.S. Census, Census of Service Industries, 1982, 1987 and 1992. (1) Represents only those establishments with payroll.

As in the previous five year period, 1987 through 1992 saw a * increase in receipts for Dauphin County as they almost saw a,40 ' percent increase from the 1987 results while paid employees .increases approxiamately 47 percent within- the Harrisburg SMSA. All three regions experienced increases for the most part from the figures presented in 1987.

5-20 I

I TABLE 5-15 DAUPHIN COUNTY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 1 1995 Commerce Bank Community Banks NA ,I Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company Dauphin National Bank Farmers’ Bank and Trust Company Fulton Bank Gratz National Bank Guaranty Bank NA Guaranty Trust Company Halifax National Bank Corestates Bank NA Harris Savings Bank Lebanon Valley National Bank Mechanics Savings and Loan Mellon Bank NA Meridian Bank Mid Penn Bank Miners Bank of Lykens Pennsylvania National Bank Pennsylvania State Bank PNC Bank Upper Dauphin National Bank York Federal Savings and Loan Association SOURCE: Reaional Economic Statistics for the Harrisbura Area Metro Area.

TABLE 5-16 ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF COMMERCIAL BANKING INSTITUTIONS* DAUPHIN COUNTY 1987-1 988

DEC 1987 JUNE 1988 DEC 1988

Total Loans & Leases 2,515 2 , 434 2 , 689 Total Assets 4 , 068 4,081 4,527 Total Deposits 3 ,340 3 ,371 3,531 Total Equity Capital 300 309 325 * Figures listed in millions of dollars. SOURCE: Reqional Economic Statistics for the Harrisburs Area Metro Area.

5-21 Research and development facilities are abundant in Dauphin County. Table 5-17 offers an extensive inventory of these facilities.

TABLE 5-1 7 DAUPHIN COUNTY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND THEIR RESEARCH AREAS 1983

AMP Incorporated Various Association Fact Finding High Technology Engineering Committees Electronics Association Management & Legislative Electronic Tools Services, Inc. Economic Impact and Political Impact Bureau of Plant Industry Plant Pest Identification Applied Research Unit , Weeds, Insects, and Capitol Blue Cross Plant Diseases Compilation and Analysis Market Research Department Development Division Edward C. Michener Associates, Inc. Harristown Development Corporation Marketing Audits Planning and Development Product Positioning Revitalization Marketing Planning Analysis Research and Development Inter-State Management Information Hershey Foods Corporation System, Inc. Food Research Food Wholesale Food Product Development Food Distribution Management Information Bureau of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Division of Epidemiology Research Pennsylvania Department of Ed. Pennsylvania Department of Health Evaluation, Specification, and Epidemiology, Public Health, Demonstration and Preventive Medicine Pennsylvania Economy League, Inc. Physiology Department Non-Partisan, Objective, and Pennsylvania State University Public Administration Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Cell Biology Research and Statistics Division Biological Chemistry Department Pennsylvania Office of Employment Pennsylvania State University Security Genetics, Biochemistry and Microbiology Employment Statistics Unemployment Statistics Pathology Department Demographic Statistics Pennsylvania State University Metabolism, Endocrinology, Pennsylvania Intergovernmental and Cell Biology Counc i1 Intergovernmental Relations Artificial Heart Research Project Public Finance Pennsylvania State University Economic Development Cardiac Assist Pump, Cardiac Support, and Artificial Hearts

5-22 TABLE 5-1 7 (CONTINUED) 1 DAUPHIN COUNTY RESEARCH AND DETELOPMENT FACILITIES AND THEIR RESEARCH AREAS 1 1983 Skelly and Loy Coal Mining, New Equipment Microbiology Department Design, and Computer Software Pennsylvania State University 1 Herpes Virus, Cancer, Genes R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. Stackpole Books Groundwater Book Publishing Applications I Hazardous Waste Cleanup Book Distribution Earth Resources Studies Inventory Controls

1 The Asphalt Institute Tri-County Regional Planning Asphalt Commission Highway and Road Local Regulations Pavements Housing 1 Transportation Advanced Process Engineering Center TRW Inc., Turbine Airfoils Division MFG Technology I Turbine Components Automation I SOURCE: Pennsylvania County Data Book, March 1987, Dauphin County.

I Dauphin County also provides several non-profit community development corporations that assist local businesses and offer a wealth of information in various classifications. The following is I a list of these organizations in the County in 1992: Capital Region Economic Development Corporation (CREDC) Engletown Neighborhood Development Assistance League Limited I ( ENDALL ) Habitat For Humanity Harrisburg Community and Economic.Affairs I Harrisburg Fair Housing Council Harristown Development Corporation South Central Pennsylvania Housing Development Foundation Tri-County Housing Development Corporation I Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg I SOURCE: Lender’s Book The number of business establishments in Dauphin County may show an annual increase, but several employers consistently employ 1 large numbers of workers. These companies play a key role in keeping the economic base a stable one. Table 5-18 provides a list of these major employers in the County. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, one member of this list, employees about 20 percent I of the residents of the County, making it the largest employer in Dauphin County. I 5-23 I

TABLE 5-1 8 MAJOR EMPLOYERS 1 DAUPHIN COUNTY 1993 1

I AMP Incorporated IBM Corporation Bell Telephone Company Polyclinic Medical Center Bethlehem Steel Corporation Harrisburg School District 1 Capital Blue Cross HERCO Inc. Central Dauphin School Hershey Foods Corporation Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Milton Hershey School Dauphin County Heshey Medical Center 1 Giant Food Stores Inc. Harrisburg Hospital United Parcel Service Inc. Harrisburg Post Office Conrail City of Harrisburg 1 GPU Nucleat/TMI Nationwide Insurance Group Penn National Insurance Patriot News, Co. Harrisburg Community College Penn State - Harrisburg 1

Market Centers I

Currently, there is a broad selection of market centers available to Dauphin County residents, and the list is continuously I expanding. As the population increases, the demand for more market areas expands within the County. Driving through the County it becomes obvious that construction of new market areas has not slowed. The table below offers a variety of shopping areas in 1 Dauphin County. I TABLE 5-19 DAUPHIN COUNTY SHOPPING CENTERS I 1993

Brandywynn Plaza Briarcrest Square I City Line Shopping Center Colonial Commons Colonial Square I Derrytown Mall East Park Shopping Center Elizabethville Borough Shopping District 1 Harrisburg East Mall Harristown Strawberry Square Hershey Outlet Center Hershey Shopping District I Hills Shopping Center Hummelstown Borough Shopping Center Jamesway Plaza I Kings Plaza Kline Village Shopping Center K-Mart Shopping Center I 5-24 I TABLE 5- 1 9 (CONTINUED) DAUPHIN COUNTY SHOPPING CENTERS 1993 Linglestown Plaza Lykens Boro Shopping District Lykens Valley Plaza Middletown Boro Shopping District Middletown Plaza Millersburg Boro Shopping District Olde Liberty Square Park Village Plaza Parkway Center Shopping Mall Paxton Square Shopping Center Point Shopping Center, The (Union Deposit Mall) Progress Plaza Steelton Boro Shopping District Swatara Crossing Union Deposit Shopping Center Union Square Shopping Center Uptown Plaza Village of Oakhurst Shopping Center

I SUMMARY Dauphin County is an economically stable and growing region I with an increasing population and list of employers. The state government facilities provide numerous jobs; these jobs may fluctuate in time, but as long as the state continues to conduct business from the Harrisburg area, the large amount of state jobs will remain secure. In addition, industries such as retail and wholesale trade, professional and other service related industries, and manufacturing will be needed to support the state government activities and other major employers in the Tri-County region. Also, the transportation industry, continuing to employ many Dauphin County citizens, helps Dauphin County maintain its diverse and expanding economy. As it continues to expand, so will its sphere of economic and social influences. The relative strength of the SMSA’s economic base is reflected in the fact that residents of the Area spent about $3.8 billion on retail items in 1986, thus ranking it 74th nationally in terms of retail sales out of 317 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas surveyed. The Harrisburg SMSA’s population ranks 82nd out of the 317 SMSA’s in the nation. The Harrisburg Area also maintains a relatively higher employment rate,. as compared to the State and national trends. In 1988, 4,930 firms allocated paychecks to 140,980 Dauphin County residents, averaging approximately $21,280. Analysis of the present economic base, past trends and future predictions indicate that the potential for economic expansion and vitality is very promising.

5-25 I

I CHAPTER 6 1 EXISTING LAND USE The characteristics of Dauphin County are reflected in the manner in which the land itself is utilized and the development patterns the land exhibits. These land use patterns illustrate the 1 diverse factors and attitudes in the County towards the existing physical features, cultural influences, economics, religion and social influences. These components will guide the future I development and land use of the communities in Dauphin County. Information presented in this section, inventories the present land use in Dauphin County and provides the basis for recommendations I regarding future land use. This inventory analyzes the land use throughout the entire area of Dauphin County, including the Susquehanna River. .The I results are cataloged and illustrated in Exhibit 6-A. In addition, the County is divided into two sections, the developed land area and the undeveloped land area. Exhibits 6-B and 6-C illustrate the I conclusions from this study. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I The land utilized for residential use in Dauphin County amounts to approximately 12.72 percent of the total land area. Approximately 82.5 percent of all the developed land in the County I is used for residential purposes, predominantly single family dwelling units. Map 6-1 graphically shows that the City of Harrisburg has a I high concentration of residential dwellings. Residential units in Harrisburg increased from 14,903 in 1981 to 16,812 in 1986. Adjacent townships such as Susquehanna, Lower Paxton, Swatara and I Lower Swatara all have large densities of residential units, as well as the boroughs of Penbrook, Paxtang, Highspire, Steelton, and Middletown. I Residential land use on the southeastern side of Dauphin County has also expanded. East Hanover, West Hanover, South Hanover, Hummelstown and Derry Townships have all experienced an I increase in their population during the last decade. The boroughs were the first areas settled in the northern portion of Dauphin County, and today they remain the nucleus of residential land use. IC Dwellings have recently been developed along the major thorough- fares in this region such as PA 225, PA 25, PA 147, and us 209. I COMMERCIAL LAND USE Retail establishments dominate the category of commercial land use in Dauphin County. The commercial land encompasses I approximately 1.28 percent of the total land, and about 8.32 percent of the developed land in the County. Commercial activities are concentrated in the various boroughs around the County, as well I 6-1 I I as in the area around Harrisburg, one of the major market centers in Dauphin County. The revitalization program within the City of I Harrisburg has enabled the amount of businesses to expand from 1,908 in 1981 to 2,463 in 1986. Commercial activities are flourishing along roads such as PA I 443, PA 39, US 83, US 22, US 322, US 209, and US 230, and thus developing various market centers in many of the townships in the southern portion of Dauphin County. I WHOLESALE LAND USE I Wholesale land use, characterized by dealerships that offer wholesale prices on their products, are not as abundant as the retail outlets, but they do constitute .16 percent of the total land in Dauphin County. The wholesale centers, which primarily I appear in the boroughs and large market centers, account for one percent of the developed land in Dauphin County. I SERVICES LAND USE Services included in the service land use classification primarily engage in providing a certain service to the community. I Examples of service industries are those offering assistance for health matters (particularly the County’s numerous hospitals), legal issues, hotels, engineering and other professional services, I educational facilities, and establishments providing business, repair and amusement services. Dauphin County maintains services on approximately .27 percent 1 of the total area, and about 1.76 percent of the developed portion of the County. These organizations are distributed throughout the many boroughs and market areas located in the individual townships I in Dauphin County. TRANSPORTATION LAND USE I Dauphin County sustains approximately .27 percent of its expanse for transportation purposes. This total increases to 1.72 percent when considering only the developed portion of the County. I In addition to the vast network of highways in the region, Dauphin County supports a large railroad system and terminal located in the downtown Harrisburg area, which offers services from Conrail and I Amtrak. Two airports currently operate in Dauphin County. The Harrisburg International Airport in Middletown and the Bendigo 8 Airport in Rush Township provide services for air traffic. Industrial Land Use I Approximately .67 percent of Dauphin County’s land is utilized for industrial purposes. The developed portion of the County I maintains about 4.36 percent of the area for industry. Large portions of the Borough of Steelton are used for industrial use, as

6-2 I II

well as areas in Wiconisco Township, Lower Swatara Township, I Swatara Township, Middletown Borough, and Derry Township. 1 PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE Public lands are defined as those occupied by municipal buildings, public schools, police stations, fire departments, libraries, churches, parks and playgrounds, scenic and historic I sites, public trails, paths, and other public recreational areas. These areas may be owned and operated by the municipality, State, County, or Federal government. About .07 percent of Dauphin I County's land is occupied by these facilities, while 31 percent of the developed portion has public facilities. Most municipalities and townships in Dauphin County possess some land reserved for I public use. CONSERVATION LAND USE I Approximately 17.84 percent of Dauphin County's total land area is considered public land. This land encompasses the state forest lands and state game lands in the Middle Paxton, East Hanover, Rush, Jefferson, Jackson, Wiconisco, and Williams I Townships. I OPEN SPACE The open space in Dauphin County includes the Susquehanna River, agricultural lands, mountainous areas, and land not utilized I by any particular land use. Approximately 44.9 percent of the County is defined as open space. The Susquehanna River accounts for I about 5.6 percent of this total. I I I I 1 1

I 6-3 I I

CHAPTER 7 I HOUSING Attractive' housing and well maintained residential I neighborhoods are one of the most important assets of any community. Good housing not only assures a sound residential tax base that will continue to appreciate in value, but also assures I that residents are living in an environment that is conducive to healthful and satisfactory day-to-day life. The future quality and condition of housing is extremely I important to the growth and prosperity of Dauphin County and its municipalities. Where substandard or deteriorated housing conditions exist, positive public and private action is requiredto I prevent the spread of these conditions and to restore these areas to sound condition. By analyzing existing housing characteristics and evaluating housing conditions, those areas of the County which require such attention can be identified and recommendations for I appropriate actions can be made. The purpose of this housing overview is to provide an I assessment of the existing quantity of housing within the County, its quality, and future housing needs. The general characteristics of most housing in Dauphin County appear to be more than satisfactory. There are, however, inhabited dwellings with I inadequate plumbing, bathroom, and kitchen facilities; and those that can be considered overcrowded. The increasing pressures of urbanization and a growing population are becoming more evident as I residential subdivisions and apartment complexes occupy more land area throughout the County. New and innovative housing programs further broaden the range of considerations which must be included I in a program of planning for housing. In view of this, it is important to take a close look at the character of housing in order to get a better idea of the varied living conditions which exist in Dauphin County, and to plan toward adequate housing for all 1 residents. It should be noted that more detailed housing characteristics are contained in a package of County and municipal level profiles which are available for review, and act to I supplement the data contained in this text. HOUSING INVENTORY I Census data indicates that the County's year-round housing stock has increased by some 7,000 dwelling units between 1980 and 1990, or by about 7.3 percent. As indicated in Table 7-1, the 1 total housing supply in the County has increased by a smaller percentage than either Cumberland or Perry Counties, or the entire Harrisburg SMSA. The three counties' rank order in terms of 1 population growth was similar to housing increases during the 1980's; Perry County had the highest population growth (24.8 percent), followed by Cumberland County (13.6 percent) and Dauphin County (3.8 percent). As discussed in the Population Chapter, the I urban and suburban movement of population to the more rural areas during this decade affected this trend. I 7-1 I From 1970 to 1990, the County's housing supply has increased by about 23,713 dwellings, or approximately 32 percent. This surpasses the population increase of 5.5 percent experienced over these two decades. It is noted that year-round housing units' consist of all occupied units plus vacant units available or intended for year-round use. Units intended for seasonal occupancy and migratory labor are not included in the totals.

TABLE 7-1 YEAR ROUND DWELLING UNITS 1980-1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY

I Chancred 1980 1990 Number Percent Harrisburg SMSA 174,319 196,855 22,536 12.9 Dauphin County 95,354 102,684 7,000 7.3 Cumberland County 65,096 77,108 12,012 17.4 Perry County 14,784 17,063 2,279 15.4 (1) Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry Counties SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990

The tenure and occupancy characteristics for dwellings in 1990, as compared to that which existed in 1980, are reflected in Table 7-2. The total number of occupied dwellings increased by some 7,176 units, or about 8.1 percent over that decade; with renter-occupied units increasing by 2,117 (6.5 percent) and owner- occupied units increasing by a greater number (5,059) and a larger percentage (9.1 percent) than renter-occupied units during this decade. The number of vacant dwelling increased by only 154 (2.1 percent), thus increasing the gross vacancy rate from 7.6 percent in 1980 to 7.7 percent in 1990.

~ ~ TABLE 7-2 HOUSING INVENTORY: 1980-1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY Chancre 1980 1990 Number Gercent Total Dwelling Units 95,728 102,684 6,956 7.3 Year Round Dwellings 95,354 101,905 6,551 6.9 Occupied Dwellings 88,088 95,264 7,176 8.1 5,059 9.1 Owner Occupied 55,649 60,708 6.5 Renter-Occupied 21,439 34,556 2,117 Vacant Dwellings 7,266 7,420 154 2.1 Gross Vacancy Rate 7.69 7.7% SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980 and 1990 7-2 1

Table 7-3 compares the 1990 vacancy rate and tenure status of dwelling units in the County with the Harrisburg SMSA, Cumberland I County, and Perry County. The Dauphin County vacancy rate was lower than neighboring Perry County but higher than Cumberland County. As might be expected for a county containing a center I city, Dauphin County had the highest percentage of renter-occupied , dwellings, and the lowest percentage of owner-occupied dwellings, in the Tri-County Region. I Similarly, the Boroughs contained a higher percentage of renter- occupied dwelling units as part of their total housing than did most (but not all) Townships. The municipalities with the highest I percentage of total units renter occupied in 1990 were: Harrisburg City (45.2 percent), Derry Township (43.7 percent), Middletown Borough (43.5 percent), Lower Paxton Township (38.9 percent), Hummelstown Borough (38.6 percent), Highspire Borough (37.9 I percent) and Millersburg Borough (36.0 percent) . Conversely, several of the Townships had a greater percentage of their housing stock comprised of owner-occupied units. The Townships of Jackson, I Mifflin, South Hanover, Upper Paxton, Washington, Wayne, West Hanover, Wiconisco and Williams had between 80 and 86 percent of their housing supply comprised of owner-occupied units.

TABLE 7-3 YEAR-ROUND DWELLING UNITS BY OCCUPANCY: 1990 (Percentage) Occupied Renter Owner Vacant (%) Harrisburg SMSA 32.0 68.0 6.2 Dauphin County 36.3 63.7 7.2 Cumber1 and County 28.2 71.8 4.7 Perry County 20.5 79.5 8.1 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: RESIDENTIAL UNIT DESIGN Dauphin County exhibits a variety of housing types. The most common residental unit design in the County is the single family detached dwelling, comprising almost half of all occupied housing in 1990. As illustrated in Table 7-4 and Chart 7-1, apartment units comprised 26.1 percent, townhouses 16.5 percent, two family homes 4.1 percent, and mobile homes 3.4 percent of the remaining dwelling units. Dauphin County's housing stock is more diversified. than either Cumberland or Perry County's, where single family detached units predominate to an even greater extent (56.8 percent and 63.9 percent, respectively).

7-3 I

I i I CHART 7-1 1 HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990 I I I SF DETACHED 1 49.9% a 1

I MOBILE !-10 ME 3.4% TWO FAMI LY 1 4,1%

I APT U 26.1 {OUSES 1 16,5% I I I I SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS, 1990 I

TABLE 7-4 1 OCCUPIED HOUSING INVENTORY: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN - 1990

Type of Dwellinq Number Percent I Single Family Detached 47,542 49.9 Two Family 3,893 4.1 Townhouses 15,672 16.5 Apartment Units 24,851 26.1 1 Mobile Homes 3,306 3.4 TOTAL 95,264 100.0 SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of Census, 1990

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD The distribution of persons among all occupied housing units is an important index of general household sizes and the type of housing that might be needed. In 1990 Dauphin County had a slightly smaller household size than the typical household in Cumberland and Perry Counties, and throughout the SMSA as a whole. The typical Dauphin County household size has decreased from 2.9 in 1970, to 2.6 in 1980, and to 2.45 in 1990. A decline in the number of persons per household has been commonly experienced throughout the Harrisburg SMSA. Several factors account for this change, including the desire to have fewer children, fewer children continuing to reside in their parent's home, and rising personal income, which allows more single persons to maintain a household alone. It is interesting to note that the number of one-person households has increased from 22,902 in 1980 to 32,102 in 1990, or by about 40.2 percent. Married couples comprised the largest percentage of households in 1990, at 51.3 percent. Census data further indicates that two-person households comprised 31.8 percent of the total, followed by one persons households at 26 percent, three-person households at 17.1 percent, four-person households at 14.4 percent, five-person households at 6.6 percent, and those containing six or more persons at 4 percent.

TABLE 7-5 ' HOUSEHOLD SIZE: 1980-1990 (Persons per Household)

1980 1990 Chanqe Harrisburg SMSA 2.7 2.7 -.3 Dauphin County 2.6 2.45 -.15 Cumberland County 2.7 2.5 -.2 Perry County 2.8 2.7 -.l SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980, 1990 7-5 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: SIZE OF DWELLING UNITS The highest percentage of dwellings in Dauphin County are of the standard six room type (21.0 percent of all dwel.lings in 1990); however the 5 room unit is a close second.* 18.3 percent, followed by four rooms (15.1 percent) and 7 or'more rooms (14.0 percent). 12.6 percent of all dwellings,contained three or fewer rooms in 1990. This data is shown in Table 7-6, and also illustrates the diversity of housing available in Dauphin County.

TABLE 7-6 ROOMS PER DWELLING UNIT: 1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY

Number Number of Percent Of Rooms Dwellinq Units 1 903 0.9 2 3,142 3.1 3- a, 824 8.6 4 15,471 15.1 5 18,754 18.3 6 21,631 21.0 7 14,368 14.0 8 11,292 11.0 9 or more 8,299 8.0 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

HOUSING CHRRACTERISTICS: AGE OF DWELLING STRUCTURES The age of a structure can be useful in the evaluation of structural conditions. Although the age of a structure does not necessarily imply its condition, it does point to areas where repairs, heating costs, and inadequate plumbing and electrical systems could be a problem. The age ranges of dwelling units in Dauphin County are shown on Table 7-7. Upon examination of this Table, it is clear that the bulk of the County's residential construction took place since 1950; with about 47 percent having been constructed between 1960 and 1990. The larger increases were initially experienced by the suburban areas outside Harrisburg City and its immediate areas. High levels of growth continue in suburbanizing/rural Townships. During the 1980,s the County experienced an increase of 7,322 dwellings. During this period the leading residential growth municipalities were:

7-6 Lower Paxton Township - 2,679 dwellings Derry Township - 1,459 dwellings Swatara Township - 928 dwellings Susquehanna Township - 747 dwellings Lower Swatara Township - 329 dwellings Middle Paxton Township - 297 dwellings West Hanover Township - 242 dwellings Londonderry Township - 159 dwellings SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990

According to the Census, eleven Dauphin County municipalities I experienced a loss in dwelling units during the 1980's: Harrisburg , City (-1416 units), Steelton Borough (-334) , Lykens Borough (-48) , Penbrook Borough (-46), Wiconisco Township (-21), Williamstown Borough (-ll), Highspire Borough (-11), Paxtang Borough (-9), I Pillow Borough (-3), Berrysburg Borough (-3), and Middletown Borough (-2). I Concentrations of older dwelling units, constructed prior to , 1940, are primarily located in the Harrisburg urbanized area. This is illustrated in Table 7-8. I

TABLE 7-7 I AGE OF YEAR ROUND DWELLING UNITS: 1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY Year Structure Built Number Percent I 1980 to March 1990 13,864 13.5 1970 to 1979 19,451 18.9 1960 to 1969 14,842 14.5 I 1950 to 1959 16,104 15.7 1940 to 1949 10,596 10.3 I 1939 or Earlier 27,827 27.1 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 I

According to building permit information submitted by the 1 County's municipalities to Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 10,359 new dwelling unit permits were issued between 1980 and 1988. I I I 7-7 1 I 1 CHART 7-2 MUNICIPALITIES WITH MOST NEW DWELLINGS 11 DAUPHIN COUNTY 1980 - 1990

I MUNICIPALITY

L. PAXTON

DERRY

B SWATARA

1 SUSQUEHANNA 1 L. SWATARA I I M. PAXTON. I W. HANOVER i ..

LONDONDERRY TABLE 7-8 CONCENTRATIONS OF OLDER DWELLINGS Year-Round Units: Constructed Prior to 1940 DAUPHIN COUNTY Municipality Number Dwellings Harrisburg City 12,168 Steelton Borough 1,291 Derry Township 967 Susquehanna Township 1,169 Middletown Borough 1,042 Swatara Township 819 Lower Paxton Township 817 Hummelstown Borough 746 Penbrook Borough 795 Millersburg Borough 700 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: HOUSING CONDITIONS/INFRASTRUCTURE Several reliable indicators of substandard housing are the lack of complete plumbing facilities for exclusive use, bath rooms, , and kitchens. These data are illustrated in Tables 7-9 through 7- 10. The percentage of total dwellings in the County reported in the 1990 Census as lacking complete plumbing facilities for i exclusive use, was only .OS percent, or about 498 dwelling units. ' The total number of dwellings in the County lacking complete plumbing has decreased from 1,882 in 1980 to 498 in 1990. Of the occupied units in the County reported as lacking complete plumbing in 1990, 169 were owner occupied units and 215 were renter-occupied units.

TABLE 7-9 YEAR-ROUND DWELLING UNITS BY PLUMBING FACILITIES (1): 1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY Number Percent Total Year-Round Units 101,905 100.0 Units With Complete Plumbing 101,407 99.95 Units Without Complete Plumbinq 498 .05 - Total Occupied Units 95,264 100.0 Units With Complete Plumbing 94; 264 99.6 Owner-Occupied 60,539 Renter-Occupied 34,341 Units Without Complete Plumbing 384 .04 Owner-Occupied 169 Renter-Occupied 215 SOURCE: .U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

7-9 TABLE 7-9 (continued)

(1) Plumbing Facilities - The category "Complete plumbing for exclusive use" consists of units which have hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower inside the housing unit for the exclusive use of the occupants of the unit. "Lacking complete plumbing for exclusive use" includes those conditions when (1) all three specified plumbing facilities are present inside the unit, but are also used by another household; (2) some but not all the facilities are present; or (3) none of the three specified plumbing facilities are present.

Approximately 498 of the total year-round dwelling units, or about .05 percent, had either no bathroom or only a half bath in 1990, while about 32 percent had more than one complete bathroom.

Census data also indicates that only (.05 percent) of all dwelling units in the County lacked complete kitchen facilities. A unit has complete kitchen facilities when it has all of the following: (1) an installed sink.with piped water, (2) a range or cookstove, and (3) a mechanical refrigerator. Another indicator of deficient housing is the number of dwellings having more than one person per room. Based on this standard, in 1990 the County contained 1,770 dwellings with an occupancy ratio of more than one person per room, consisting of 697 owner-occupied dwellings and 829 renter-occupied dwellings. On a percentage basis, only about 1.9 percent of the 95,264 total occupied dwellings in the County could be considered overcrowded.

TABLE 7-11 OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS BY PERSON PER ROOM: 1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY Number Percent One Person or Less Per Room 93,494 98.1 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied More than One Person Per Room (1) 1,770 1.9 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Occupied Units 95,264 100.0 (1) Considered an Overcrowded Condition SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

7-10 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: UTILITIES A variety of house heating fuels are used in the County. I About 40 percent use fuel oil or kerosene, 26 percent use utility gas, 26 percent use electricity, and 4 percent use coal or coke. I Almost 2.5 percent of the dwellings reported having no phone, and about 48 percent reported not having any air conditioning I equipment in 1980. Approximately 81 percent of the dwellings in the County receive public sewerage service and about 78 percent receive public water service. All of the above statistics are from the 1990 U.S. Census. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: VALUE OF HOUSING Previous discussion in this Chapter has identified such housing characteristics as dwelling unit design, age, condition, occupancy, size, and infrastructure. Of major importance, however, is the value of housing in the County. Because of the rapid rate of escalating housing costs, constant shifts in housing supply and demand, and the innate difficulties of estimating the actual "worth" of a dwelling unit, the value of housing is one of the most difficult areas in which to establish a true current value figure. The 1990 Census tabulated the value of owner-occupied housing l units, as estimated by the owner, and contract rent paid for renter occupied units. The results are illustrated on Tables 7-12 and 7- 13. Approxiamately (62.5 percent) of the owner-occupied dwelling units in the County fell within the $50,000 to $95,000 range, with the median dwelling value being $71,300. Approximately 45 percent

~ of the monthly contract rents fell within the $250 to $370 range, with the median monthly contract rent being $357. Between 1980 and 1990, the median housing value in the County increased by approximately 76 percent, while the median family income increased only 7.9 percent. This difference between housing value and ability to pay has a negative effect on housing affordability. There are 12 municipalities whose median housing values exceed that of the County ($71,300):

Derry Township $108,100 South Hanover Township 98,900 Conewago Township 96,300 East Hanover Township 93,400 West Hanover Township 85,500 Lower Paxton Township 84,900 Middle Paxton Township 83,000 Susquehanna Township 82,700 Londonderry Township 78,500 Swatara Township 75,200

7-11 Lower Swatara Township 75,100 Wayne Township 72,300 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

Those (14) municipalities whose median housing value is more than 25 percent lower than that of the County's value of $71,300 (that is, below $53,475) are:

Lykens Township $52,700 Royalton Borough 50,200 Williams Township 45,300 Elizabethville Borough 46,100 Millersburg Borough 44,900 Steelton Borough 44,000 Halifax Borough 43,500 Gratz Borough 41,100 Harrisburg City 38,400 Wiconisco Township 38,200 Pillow Borough 37,300 Lykens Borough 36,200 Williamstown Borough 34,700 Berrysburg Borough 33,200 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

The Median housing values and contract rents of all Dauphin County municipalities in 1990 are listed in Table 7-13. Comparatively, the 1990 Dauphin County housing value and median contract rent were lower than those of Cumberland county and exceeded those of Perry County (see Table 7-14).

7-12 TABLE 7-12 VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS: 1990 DAUPHIN COUNTY Dwell ing Units Value Ranse Number Percent Less than $50,000 13,445 26.2 $ 50,000 to $ 99,999 27,788 54.1 $100,000 to $149,999 6,746 13.1 $150,000 to $199,999 1,986 3.9 $200,000 to $299,999 1,145 2.2 $300,000 or more 295 0.05

Total Units 51,405 100.0 COUNTY-WIDE MEDIAN 'VALUE: $71,300

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

7-13 CHART7-3 VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1990

$ VALUE

0-50,000

50-99,999

100-149,999

I 150-199,999

200-299,999

300,000+

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % OF TOTAL UNITS SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS, 1990 TABLE 7-13 MEDIAN HOUSING VALUES AND CONTRACT RENTS 1990

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Dwellins Value Contract Rent Berrysburg Borough $33,200 $233 Conewago Township 96,300 366 Dauphin Borough 63,400 313 Derry Township 108,100 422 East Hanover Township 93,400 305 Elizabethville Borough 46,100 263 Gratz Borough 41,100 191 Halifax Borough 43,500 264 Halifax Township 69,300 278 Harrisburg City 38,400 296 Highspire Borough 53,800 350 Hummelstown Borough 69,800 359 Jackson Township 64,100 214 Jefferson Township 70,800 400 Londonderry Township 78,500 306 Lower Paxton Township 84,900 457 Lower Swatara Township 75,100 377 Lykens Borough 36,200 216 Lykens Township 52,700 194 Middle Paxton Township 83,000 356 Middletown Borough 59,400 382 Mifflin Borough 58,500 238 Millersburg Borough 44, 900 235 Paxtang Borough 71,300 347 Penbrook Borough 56,700 328 Pillow Borough 37,300 205 Reed Township 62,900 235 Royalton Borough 50,200 305 Rush Township 58,900 225 South Hanover Township 98,900 347 Steelton Borough 44,000 302 Susqyehanna Township 82,700 402 Swatara Township 72,200 368 Upper Paxton Township 62,100 234 Washington Township 65,400 219 Wayne Township 72,300 225 West Hanover Township 85,500 338 Wiconisco Township 38,200 200 Williams Township 45,300 153 Williamstown Borough 34,700 215

County $71,300 $357 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

7-15 1 I I

TABLE 7-14 MEDIAN HOUSING VALUES AND CONTRACT RENTS 1990

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Dwelling Value Contract Rent $323 $72,925 Harrisburg SMSA $357 $71,300 Dauphin County $378 $85,000 Cumberland County $262 Perry County $64,400 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

HOUSING NEEDS One of the most critical components of a comprehensive plan is the strategy for improving the condition and supply of housing. The primary objectives of a housing program are to improve and protect the status of existing dwellings, assure stable future housing development, and provide assurances that a variety of housing will be available for all age groups and income levels. Since Dauphin County is growing in population, new families moving into the County will need to move into available housing. Using existing 1990 Census data and Department of Environmental Resources population projections, it is estimated that no additional dwelling units will be needed between 1990 and 2020 in most of the County's municipalities if we continue to see the number of standard vacant units available to present and future residents as has been indicated by the 1990 Census (see Table 7- 15). This assumption may seem unlikely when considering the high level of building permit activity in Dauphin County in recent years. It should be noted that the number of units which will actually be built to meet future needs will be highly influenced by the area's economic growth. Sewer capacity and the availability of appropriately zoned land are also important factors influencing the actual figure. Recent action by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) to impose moratoriums on sewerage systems may

severely restrict the rate of construction in some areas of the I County; however, this action is not expected to impact many municipalities. To estimate the housing needs between 1990 and 2020 by municipality, existing and 1990 Census data and projected 2000, 2010, and 2020 population figures were used. The 1990 data included: the population residing in dwelling units (excludes those I in institutions and/or group quarters, Col.A), the number of occupied dwelling units (Col. B), the number of persons per occupied dwelling unit (a measure of average household size, Col. 7-16 C), and the number of deficient (Col. D) and vacant dwelling units (Col. E, adjusted). An assumption was made that the number of persons per dwelling unit would remain the same over the time period. The number of "standard vacant" dwelling units was calculated as the total number of vacant units minus the number of boarded up vacant units, since the boarded up vacant units are definitely not available and would need to be replaced or rehabilitated. The "deficient" housing figures on this table were estimated by adding the number of units lacking complete plumbing facilities for exclusive use and the number of over crowded (i.e. greater than one person per room) units, then subtracting the number of units that possessed both of these characteristics. The estimated number of dwelling units which would be required to house the population between the three 10 year increments presented (Col. H) was calculated by dividing the population residing in dwelling units in the year 1990 and the projected populations in 2000, 2010, and 2020 (Col. G) by the persons per dwelling unit figure (Col. C) . The number of additional units needed between 1990 and 2020 to house the 2020 population (Col. I) was estimated by: (1) subtracting the number of existing dwelling units in 1990 from the estimated number of units required for 2000, 2010, and 2020, (2) adding the number of deficient units in 1990, since these will have to be replaced or rehabilitated, and (3) subtracting the standard vacant units in 1990, since these are ' available for use. The resulting figure represents the number of dwelling units that would have to be constructed or rehabilitated to provide standard housing for the entire population living in dwelling units for 2000, 2010, 2020. County-wide, it is estimated ' that no additional dwellings would be needed. Matter-of-fact, the data indicates that we will have many more housing units available than people to fill them if the population projections for the County are accurate for the next century.

An important component of housing need is the number of units needed to house the low income residents. To estimate this need, a commonly used assumption is made that one occupied dwelling unit is equivalent to one household, since one household generally occupies one dwelling unit. Next, we want to establish the number of low income dwellings that existed in 1990. Since the County Redevelopment Authority can presently provide housing assistance only to households earning 50 percent or less of the median income, this level of earnings was considered to be the break off point for defining "low income." Using the assumption that one dwelling unit equals one household, the total number of low income households in 1990 (i.e., those earning 50 percent or less of the median income of the municipality) is equivalent to the total number of low income dwellings that existed in 1990 (Col. F). The addition or deletion number of low income dwelling units needed for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 was ,calculated by taking the percentage of dwellings that were low income in 1990 and applying that same proportion to the total number of dwelling units 7-17 needed in 2000, 2010 and 2020, again using the assumption that one dwelling unit equals one household. This method of calculating low income housing needs is based upon the growth in the number of low income households as the entire population grows, and does not consider other factors such as housing quality. This factor is addressed in the "deficient" category. This (-725) figure for the County, represents the number of low income dwellings that do not need to be provided due the number of standard vacant dwelling units available in the County as of 1990. There will always be a need and demand for new low-income dwelling, however due to the vacancy of dwelling units according to 1990 Census, it would be prudent for the County to advocate the utilization of existing units to serve the need for low-income housing consumers into the next century. The rehabilitation of existing dwellings is an important component of an improved low income housing stock. To better qualify the above statements, it will be necessary for the County to continue rehabilitation projects due to the number of standard vacant dwelling units in the County, however the need to address the low-to-moderate income population will continue to exist. The City of Harrisburg has the most standard vacant dwelling units available in the County, but rehabilitating and moving the low-income population into this housing only impacts on the number of low-income people that already reside in the City of Harrisburg. Rehabilitation needs to occur County-wide with new units being constructed to supplement what can not be rehabilitated. The population for the County is expected to increase into the next century, but than decrease slightly by 2020, so it will be important that what housing projects come on-line will address a specific need rather than create additional vacant units. Information on the number of low income dwelling units needed can be used by the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Dauphin in its program planning. With the federal government providing less funding, and recent tax law changes removing incentives for developers to build low income units, demand far exceeds supply. Thus, the development of new ways to assist low and moderate income families looking for suitable housing should be a priority for the County.

7-18

\ Benysburg Boro. 376 137 2.76 29 12 48 356 129 10 3 Conewago Twp. 2832 973 2.96 22 49 113 3212 1085 101 12 Dauphin Born. 845 328 2.57 18 11 103 797 310 -12 4 Deny Twp. 18408 7703 2.33 118 461 1501 18906 8114 -129 -25 E. Hanover Twp. 45 69 1650 2.75 35 86 252 5435 1976 264 40 Elizabethville Boro. 1467 585 2.46 54 31 200 1420 577 4 1 Gratz Boro. 696 294 2.46 36 24 114 713 290 19 7 Halifax Born. 911 365 2.47 37 36 129 923 374 6 2 Halifax Twp. 3449 1286 2.68 13 78 252 3976 1484 132 26 Harrisburg City 52376 21520 2.39 3208 3070 9444 47322 19800 -1977 -867 Highspire Boro. 2668 1169 2.28 37 89 420 2593 1137 -85 -3 1 Hummelstown Boro. 3981 1783 2.23 23 55 458 3748 1681 -136 -35 JacksonTwp. 1797 615 2.92 60 51 114 2038 698 92 17 Jefferson Twp. 3 85 140 3.23 61 109 20 432 134 -33 -5 Londonderry Twp. 4926 1797 2.72 52 433 266 5187 1907 -285 42 Lower Paxton Twp. 39162 16060 2.39 205 848 2090 43785 18320 1291 168 Lower Swatara Twp. 7072 2616 2:57 25 67 43 1 7443 2896 102 17

Lykens Born. 1986 852 2.33 117 67 336 1822 782 -20 -8 ’ Lykens Twp. 1238 396 3.07 42 40 116 1348 439 38 11 Middle Paxton Twp. 5129 1896 2.71 34 42 181 5557 205 1 150 14 Middletown Boro. 9254 3934 2.3 1 120 267 1196 9467 4098 -55 -17 Mifflin Twp. 676 214 3.27 20 20 47 791 242 35 8 Millenburg Boro. 2729 1235 2.21 81 59 458 2622 1186 -26 -10 Paxtang Boro. 1599 687 2.33 8 19 138 1420 609 -88 -18 Penbrook Boro. 279 1 1238 2.24 36 67 320 2605 1163 -114 -29 Pillow Boro. 341 132 2.32 19 5 31 349 150 17 4 Reed Twp. 259 103 2.04 7 38 25 262 128 -3 0 -7 Royalton Born. 1120 43 8 2.56 20 18 120 1164 45 5 19 5 Rush Twp. 201 80 2.48 5 70 34 213 86 -60 -26 S. Hanover Twp. 4626 1584 2.92 21 46 183 5237 1793 184 21 Steelton Boro. 5152 2137 2.41 194 160 644 4542 1885 -219 -66 Susquehanna Twp. 18636 7673 236 115 404 1506 19432 8234 48 9 Swatara Twp. 19661 7625 2.45 146 275 1602 20722 8458 304 64 Upper PaxtonTwp. 3680 1293 2.70 77 62 3 27 3957 1466 118 30 Washington Twp. 1816 642 2.82 35 30 138 1915 679 40 9 Wayne Twp. 847 280 3.05 26 24 50 999 328 52 9 W. Hanover Twp. 6125 2200 2.28 29 50 242 6206 2722 15 2 Wiconisco Twp. 1372 515 2.66 92 39 164 1351 508 45 14 Williams Twp. 1146 444 2.58 74 45 130 1255, 486 71 21 Williamstown Boro. 1509 645 2.34 113 60 25 1 1379 589 -3 -1 COUNTY TOTALS 237813 95264 2.50 5464 7417 24194 242901 99450 -115 -675

SOURCE U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990; Projections for the year 2000.2010, and 2020 were provided by the Department of Environmental Resources. April 1991. ammD~m=m-mm=~m.=r=== 201 0 2020 Projected Estimated Additional Additional Population # Households Low Income Projected Estimated. Addt’l DU’s Low Income Residing Occu ied Needed Dwellings Pop. Resid. Occu ied Needed Dwellings Municipality in D.U.’s D.33 2000-2010 Needed in D.U.’s D.l!’s 201 0-2020 Needed __-___-______A.._____--__-----__ B____-______C______D____. _--__G _____- -_____H_____. _____I ____I ______J ______-_ Berrysburg Boro. 322 117 5 2 31 5 114 14 5 Conewago Twp. 3486 1178 66 8 3609 1219 15 2 Dauphin Boro. 737 287 -6 -2 707 275 -5 -2 Derry Twp. 18781 8061 -397 -77 18207 781 4 -589 -1 15 E. Hanover Twp. 61 05 2220 193 29 6494 236 1 90 14 Elizabethville Boro. 1341 545 -9 -1 1242 505 -1 7 -6 Gratz Boro. 71 1 289 11 4 686 279 2- 1 Halifax Boro. 906 367 -6 -2 870 352 -1 4 -5 Halifax Twp. 4367 1629 81 16 4565 1703 9 2 Harrisburg City 44897 18785 -877 , -385 43802 18327 -320 -1 40 Highspire Boro. 2389 1048 -111 -40 2232 979 -121 -43 Hurnmelstown Boro. 3459 1551 -1 62 -42 3330 1493 -90 -23 Jackson Twp. 221 1 757 68 13 2288 784 35 6 Jefferson Twp. 465 144 -38 -5 478 148 -44 -6 Londondeny Twp. 5075 1866 -422 -62 4955 1822 -425 -63 Lower Paxton Twp. 47002 19666 703 91 48222 20 177 -1 33 -1 7 Lower Swatara Twp. 7558 2941 3 0 7385 2874 -1 09 -1 8 Lykens Boro. 1702 730 -2 -1 1661 713 32 13 L kens Twp. 1412 460 23 7 1418 462 4 1 IJ tddle Paxton Twp. 5798 2139 81 8 5805 21 42 -5 0 Middletown Boro. 8963 3880 -365 -111 8522 3689 -338 -1 03 Miff lin Twp. 878 269 27 6 924 283 14 3 Millersburg Boro. 2499 1131 -34 -1 3 231 7 1048 -60 -22 Paxtang Boro. 1369 588 -33 -7 1337 574 -25 -5 Penbrook Boro. 2393 1068 -1 26 -33 2334 1042 -57 -1 5 Pillow Boro. 335 144 a 2 31 9 138 7 2 Reed Twp. 243 119 -40 -1 0 227 111 -39 -9 Royalton Boro. 1175 459 6 2 1141 446 -1 1 3 Rush Twp. 207 83 -67 -28 201 81 -67 -28 S. Hanover Twp. 5675 1943 125 14 5867 2009 41 5 Steelton Boro. 441 6 1832 -1 a -5 4309 1788 -1 0 3 Susquehanna Twp. 19568 8292 -231 -45 18974 8040 -541 -1 06 Swatara Twp. 21 072 8601 14 3 2061 9 841 6 -314 -66 U per Paxton Twp. 4099 1518 68 17 4077 1510 7 2 dshinpnTwp. 1948 691 17 4 1906 676 -1 0 -2 Wa ne wp. 1115 366 40 7 1180 387 21 4 W. L anover Twp. 6090 2671 -72 -8 5853 2567 -1 25 -1 4 Wiconisco Twp. 1235 464 9 3 1147 431 20 6 Williams TWD. 1324 513 58 17 1338 519 34 4 Williamstowb Boro. 1292 552 -1 6 -6 1261 539 40 7 COUNTY TOTALS 244620 99964 -1 426 -630 242 1 24 98837 -3084 -725 CHAPTER 8 TRANSPORTATION

The primary purpose of this section is to present an inventory of transportation facilities and responsibilities in Dauphin County. Emphasis will be placed on the responsibilities of the County government with respect to transportation facility and service planning, programming, improvement and maintenance. This section and the transportation plan section will be fully consistent with the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) ' transportation planning and programming work. The County's current principal roles in improving and operating the transportation system encompass the following: 1) operating the Dauphin County Transportation Department and its paratransit services; 2) maintaining/improving County bridges; 3) partial funding of Capitol Area Transit's (CAT) operating budget; 4) planning/programming work for federal-aid system highway improvements through involvement in HATS; and 5) County Planning Commission reviews/approvals of subdivision and land development plans and comments on municipal zoning and subdivision ordinances. A major emphasis of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is on the highway system. Within the highway system only roadways with a functional classification of collector or arterial and County bridges are discussed and evaluated. Locally classified roadways are a municipal concern and not one that should be addressed in a County Comprehensive Plan. The , functional classification system that is discussed and evaluated in this document is based on the HATS functional classification system. Other transportation modes including bus, rail and air are also discussed and evaluated in this plan. Dauphin County, like the Harrisburg Region, is blessed, because of its geography and the importance of the Harrisburg Urbanized Area as a business center and the State Capital, with an excellent transportation system. The County is served by major , highways like Interstates 81, 83 and 283, U.S. Routes 22, 209, 322 and 422, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The Interstate highways and Turnpike link the County with other Areas within the Region and ' with other regions within and outside of Pennsylvania. A subsystem of minor arterial highways, many of which are Pennsylvania traffic routes, serve intra-region and intra-County travel. Dauphin County highways serve a variety of travel types including long-distance "through" travel, work commutation, goods movement and recreational travel. "Through" travel is significant and mainly occurs on the Turnpike, Interstates and U.S. Traffic Routes. Commuting trips occur on all classifications of roadways and cause congestion problems during peak commuting periods (7 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m.). These peak hour congestion problems are the worst in certain areas of the Harrisburg Urbanized Area. 8-1 1

Congestion during peak commuting periods will get worse, perhaps I considerably worse, as the Area develops with expanded and new businesses and new residents. Goods movement is considerable on the County's arterial highways and will continue to increase as the 1 Area grows. Goods movement often involves large trucks that do not always mix well with other types of vehicles and travel types. Recreational travel is also significant in Dauphin County and the Region throughout the year because of the many recreational and I entertainment attractions within the County and South Central and Central Pennsylvania. I 1980 Census data indicates that of the approximately 105 thousand workers, 16 years of age and over, who live in the County, 26 percent were employed in Harrisburg and 25 percent worked within their municipality of residence. Eighty-seven percent of the I workers used a car for their work travel and almost three-quarters of these persons drove alone. The mean travel time for a work trip I by County residents was 19.2 minutes in 1980. Between 1977 and 1988 vehicle registrations in Dauphin County increased by 30 percent from around 172 thousand to 223 thousand. The number of registrations in the Tri-County Area also increased I by 30 percent (from 332 thousand to 431 thousand) during this period. I HIGHWAYS I Functional Classification PennDOT with the assistance of local planners and Metropolitan Planning Organizations like the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) has been classifying highways for planning and funding 1 purposes for some time. In planning for highway improvements for Dauphin County it is important that planners be cognizant of a I functional classification scheme to guide this effort. The attached map pocket contains two HATS functional classification/federal-aid system maps (Maps 8-1 and 8-2) for Dauphin County. Map 8-1 covers the Harrisburg Urbanized Area which I includes portions of Cumberland, Dauphin, York and Lebanon Counties. Map 8-2 covers the rural portions of Dauphin County. I The Urbanized Area map contains Principal Arterials (Interstates, Urban Extensions and Other Principal Arterials), Minor Arterial and Collector classifications while the Rural Map I contains Interstates, Other Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors and Minor Collectors. The maps also contain federal.-aid system designations and numbers. The federal-aid system designation is important to improvement funding I considerations. The functional classification system shown in these maps I should be used by state, regional, County and local planners and officials in planning highway improvements. Table 8-1 identifies 1 characteristics of Arterial, Collector and Local highways. Many of 8-2 I I

the roadways shown on the maps with classifications of collector or higher are state highways, however, there are some locally-owned 1 roads with collector or higher ratings. These roads are listed in Table 8-2 and all are within the Urbanized or Urban Areas. This group of locally-owned roads are on the federal-aid system. There is a considerable base of data relative to state highways but much I less data available for locally-owned roads on the federal-aid system. Information on the functional classification and federal- aid system for state highways is shown in Charts 8-1 and 8-2. I Again, this plan is focusing on roadways with a collector or higher classification. i I Traffic Volumes Map 8-3 contains 1990 estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic I ' (AADT) volumes for Interstate highways and traffic routes (U.S. and PA) in the Harrisburg Region. Aside from the very high volume four and six lane limited I access facilities, some of the two, three and four lane non-limited access roadways carry significant traffic volumes. PA 39 and 441 are the highest volume two lane facilities, while U.S. 22, PA 230 and Paxton Street are the highest volume three and four lane non- I limited access roads in Dauphin County. Map 8-3 indicates that some of the higher volume rural i roadways include: 181, U.S. 22/322 and PA 283 in Southern Dauphin I County and U.S. 209, PA 147 and PA 225 in Northern Dauphin County. 8 State and Local Hiqhway Milease Table 8-3 lists municipal and state highway mileage by , municipality and for the County as a whole. In addition to I PennDOT's roadway mileage, other state agencies like the Department of Environmental Resources own 16.4 miles of roads and the PA Turnpike Commission owns 12.9 miles in the County. I The current mileage of state and local roads in the County has changed slightly since 1986 because of the turnback of state roads to municipalities and because of the construction of new municipal I roads. PennDOT continues to work with municipalities in turning back to them certain state roads that have only a local function. Since the turnback program began, over 11 miles- of state highways I have been turned back to the following municipalities: East Hanover, Londonderry, Lower Paxton , Mifflin and West Hanover Township. This is an excellent program in that the state, which I has an excessive amount of roadway mileage to maintain, is easing its maintenance burden by concentrating on roadways with other than a local function. Prior to turning a road back to a municipality, PennDOT improves the road to acceptable standards. I Major Traffic Generators I In a County such as Dauphin that is partially urbanized, traffic generators are numerous and of various types. The most

8-3 I I significant generators are within the Harrisburg Urbanized Area. The vehicle trips generated by these facilities vary in the kinds of vehicles (autos/trucks) and trip types (commuting, business, shopping, etc.) . Some of the generators are individual businesses or facilities, while others are areas of numerous activities such as office parks or retail Areas (shopping districts, malls and highway commercial strips). Some of the larger traffic generators include the Harrisburg Central Business District and Capitol Complex, the Hershey Area with its numerous attractions, various shopping malls and commercial strip highways. An inventory of major commercial traffic generators was completed recently for HATS and resulted in a list of about 125 generators in the County. Special Hiqhwav Networks Over the past five years or so, PennDOT with the assistance of HATS, has been identifying and refining a Priority Commercial Network (PCN), Agri-Access Network (AAN) and Industrial-Commercia1 Network (I-CAN). The purpose of this effort is to identify roadways most important to goods movement and to identify deficiencies on these networks and give high priority to the correction of these deficiencies. A map of these networks is currently being developed by PennDOT using information compiled for HATS by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This map will be included as part of this Comprehensive Plan when it becomes available. Aside from already identified deficiencies, five additional project needs have been identified as the result of evaluation of these three networks. These include bridge improvement needs for: State Route (SR) 0230 over Swatara Creek in Middletown; SR 2003 over Kellock Run in South Hanover Township; SR 1009 over the a tributary to the Wiconisco Creek in Lykens Township; and Grubb Street over the Swatara Creek in Royalton Borough. These bridge improvement needs are the result of weight restrictions. Four other bridge improvement needs relate to low vertical clearances and include: SR 0022 under Conrail in Dauphin Borough; SR 2018 under Conrail in Derry Township; SR 2003 under Conrail in Hummelstown; and Geyer's Church Road under Conrail in Londonderry Township. In addition to these networks, PennDOT also designates Truck Access Routes for oversize trucks as required by the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. Approval of Truck Access Routes is a continuing process and PennDOT maintains up-to- date listings of approved routes. In Dauphin County, all Truck Access Routes are on either the PCN, AAN or I-CAN. Deficiencies For the most part, this section will deal with deficiencies or projects that have already been identified by HATS and PennDOT. Discussions of the processes used by PennDOT to identify deficiencies and program improvement projects will also be presented. Finally, a listing of planned and programmed projects 8-4 from the 1990-2002 Twelve Year Program will be provided. Deficiencies/projects are discussed in four categories: capacity, safety, structural and bridge. Capacity I Capacity deficiencies/projects normally relate to the need for a new facility or relocation of an existins facility, the need to *+ _c widen existing facilities or the need to install or ipdate traffic 'I control devices such as traffic signals. With the completion of the Interstate System and rising improvement costs and limited resources, the number of new facility projects that are programmed I for improvement in Dauphin County and throughout the state are limited. The 1990 to 2002 Twelve Year Program is included later in this chapter as Table 8-5. I Some of the major capacity projects include: U.S. 22/322 (Dauphin to Speeceville) which is in the first four year period, the PA 283/North Union Street ramp project (second four year II period), the widening of I 83 from Derry Street to Union Deposit Road (1st four year period) and the widening of I 83 from 19th Street to I 81 (3rd four year period). Many of the capacity deficiencies/projects on the current Twelve Year Program are Energy I Conservation, Congestion Reduction and Safety (ECONS) projects. Most ECONS projects in Dauphin County involve traffic signal improvements, however, some are safety projects that do not involve 1 signal improvements. Under the ECONS Program, traffic signal improvements, normally a municipal responsibility, are 100 percent federally funded. I PennDOT and HATS have been very active in recent years in performing ECONS evaluations of signalized networks, corridors and I ' isolated intersections. Most of the major signalized networks,

~ corridors and isolated intersections in the Area have been evaluated in the recent past through the ECONS Program. In ' addition to the ECONS signal improvements in the present Twelve I Year Program, the following projects have been evaluated and are ' candidates for biennial updates of the Twelve Year Program: PA 230 in Middletown, and the intersections of 17th/Herr Streets and 13th/Berryhill Streets in the City. Recent ECONS corridor I improvements include: Derry Street (13th to 19th in the City), U.S. 22 in Penbrook, Susquehanna Township and Lower Paxton Township, and Paxton Street from 28th to the East Mall in Swatara I ' Township. Harrisburg's Central Business District ECONS project is expected to be completed in the fall of 1991. PennDOT's ECONS and Safety Programs are being combined (1991) into a new program named I the Safety and Mobility Initiative. Safety . I There is a special Federal Highway Administration funding category for safety projects and a safety unit is located in each of the PennDOT District Offices for addressing safety concerns. A I number of safety projects are on the current Twelve Year Program. Safety projects can include but are not limited to geometric, I 8-5 I 1

signing, pavement marking, guide rail, pavement/shoulder widening, I skid resistance and traffic control improvements. The Department's safety program always addresses problems on the state, as opposed to local, highway system. The problem of tort liability related to safety concerns has become extremely burdensome to the Department. I At one time the Department freely shared accident data with local governments but this is no longer the case because of the tort liability problem which has resulted in a yearly doubling of claims I against the Department in recent years. For these reasons the Department now carries out the safety improvement process in a 1 somewhat confidential, albeit effective, fashion. PennDOT has a very structured and effective approach to identifying and addressing safety problems. The process is an annual one that begins with a review of computerized accident data I that identifies safety priority locations utilizing various data. The worst locations are studied each year and if a cost-beneficial solution is available, a project report is prepared and a project I is recommended for programming. District 8-0 has had about $1.3 million dollars in recent years for addressing safety problems. Federal funds pay for 90 percent of these improvements as opposed to most other federal-aid highway funding categories like Primary I and Urban System that only provide 75 percent funding. I Structural Structural deficiencies/improvements include resurfacing and restoration-type projects. However, PennDOT's Betterment Program I sometimes includes traffic, safety and bridge projects. A number of structural projects can be found in the present Twelve Year Program. Both PennDOT and municipalities carry-out resurfacing projects. Municipalities typically use a combination of State I Liquid Fuel Tax Receipts and local general funds to complete resurfacing projects. Many of these projects are on locally classified roadways but occasionally some involve collectors and I even arterials. Each municipality has its own means of identifying resurfacing/restoration needs. PennDOT, as with the Safety Improvement process, has a well- I defined and structured annual process of identifying Betterment projects. The identification of Betterment projects begins with recommendations from citizens, planning commissions, legislators I and Metropolitan Planning Organizations like HATS. A computerized pavement analysis system (STAMPP) is also used to identify Betterment candidates. If a project suggestion has merit, as I determined by PennDOT County Maintenance Office personnel, it goes into a future project file. An annual Betterment candidate list is compiled by the District Office using the future project file and suggestions by the District's Bridge, Traffic and Safety Units. I The District's "A Team" field views the list of candidate projects and develops a shorter list of projects that will undergo detailed I scoping . A "B Team or Scoping Team" then field views the shortened list of candidates and begins to detail the scope and cost of each I 8-6 I 1

project. Aproject selection team then reviews available funds and project needs to develop the final annual listing of Betterment 1 projects. I Funding of the Betterment Program is about $20 million annually and is one-third federally funded with the remainder 1 coming from state funds. The legislature allocates Betterment ' funds by County and the County Maintenance Office budget comes off the top of this allocation. The remaining money is then used to I complete resurfacing/restoration-type projects. BRIDGES I Recognizing that bridge reconstruction and replacement is one of our most important transportation needs, the state legislature approved four Bridge Bills in recent years. The Bills list the I bridges to be improved and provide additional revenue sources for their improvement. The bridges are both on and off the federal-aid system and include municipal as well as state-owned structures. I Bridge improvements under the bills involve varying combinations of federal, state and local funds. It is safe to say that most of the bridges that are being I ' improved and that will be improved over the next decade are on one of the four Bridge Bills. There are four County bridges on the

~ Bridge Bills including numbers 14 (Grubb Street), 32 (Power Plant I Bridge), 35 (Rife Bridge) and 43 Henninger Farm Bridge. One of the County government's more important transportation I responsibilities is the ownership and maintenance of 52 bridges. These bridges are listed in Table 8-4. The County currently receives about $500 thousand in liquid fuel tax payments from the , state each year. All of these funds are used to maintain County I bridges. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS I In the mid 1970's HATS produced and adopted a Long-Range Highway Plan. This plan which included some extensive improvements and new facilities, represented the end of an era in transportation I planning in the Region. The era began in the early 1960's with the formation of HATS and an extensive transportation system computer modeling effort that culminated in the adoption of the mid-70's I plan. Because of rising improvement costs and a lack of resources for new facilities, relocations and major widenings, the emphasis on long range planning and major facility improvements has shifted. 1 The Twelve Year Program and the process of identifying its projects has become the essence of the highway planning process since the mid 70's. In recent years a new era in transportation planning seems to be emerging with more stability in PennDOT's financing, I more emphasis on major improvements (like U.S. 22/322 from Dauphin to Speeceville) and new tools like the microcomputer and transportation planning software to perform site-specific, corridor I and regional planning related to both short and long range needs..

8-7 I I The current Twelve Year Program process uses a llbottomup" I approach. The program begins with even numbered years (1990-2002) and is updated every two years. In the HATS Area, the process starts with a solicitation of project suggestions which is mailed I to municipalities by the Regional Planning Commission. This solicitation usually occurs in the winter of odd numbered years (e.g. 89-90). These municipal suggestions are combined with known project needs and projects are prioritized at the County level by I the County Planning Commissions, at the regional level by the Regional Planning Commission and then by HATS. The PennDOT District Office then establishes District priorities which it I forwards to PennDOT's Central Office. This office then develops a fiscally constrained program and forwards it to the State Transportation Commission (STC) which ultimately adopts the Twelve Year Program. The recommended program usually reaches the STC in I the fall of even numbered years and the Commission holds public hearings throughout the state in the winter of even numbered years (e.g. 90-91). The program is then adopted shortly after the public I hearing process ends. The current Twelve Year Program (1990-2002) follows as Table 8-5. The program is arranged by municipality and the last column 1 indicates within which four-year period of the Program the project resides. I HIGHWAY DESIGN STANDARDS The Dauphin County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance I of 1977, as amended, contains Article IV which includes design standards for streets. The ordinance is applied to subdivisions and developments in municipalities that do not have their own subdivision ordinance. The best guide for developing and I evaluating design standards for local roads and streets is PennDOT's Publication 70: "Guidelines for Design of Local Roads and I Streets". PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Capitol Area Transit (CAT) I The Cumberland-Dauphin-Harrisburg Transit Authority, known locally as Capitol Area Transit (CAT), was formed in 1973 to provide bus service to the residents of the Harrisburg Urbanized I Area. CAT currently has a fleet of 71 buses which serve Harrisburg and parts of the surrounding 28 municipalities. Twenty-one local routes and four express routes are currently operated. In Fiscal I Year 1991 CAT carried over 3.85 million passengers. CAT's hours of operation are 4:40 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. on selected routes with headways varying between 15 and 120 minutes. I Express service generally operates twice during each peak period. Saturday service consists of 14 local routes with various headways depending on route and time of day. No Sunday or holiday service I is currently provided by CAT. I 8-8 I 1 Additional information on CAT services to be added. I Paratransit I Dauphin County Transportation Department (DCTD) provides shared-ride paratransit service to the residents of Dauphin County. The service is supplied five days a week from 8:OO a.m. to 4:OO I p.m. for ambulatory and non-ambulatory persons. A 24 hour notification is required of users. The service is mainly provided for elderly and handicapped citizens, however, the general public I may use the service for a comparable fare. There is no priority -for trip purposes so the service can be used for medical, shopping, work, or social-related trips. Of the forty-four vehicles operated by DCTD, sixteen are equipped to accommodate wheelchairs. I DCTD contracts with a local taxi company for some services and that company operates four vehicles as part of the program. I Fares are generally the responsibility of the riders, however, if eligible and properly certified, 90 percent is paid under the Commonwealth's Shared-Ride Transportation Service Program (Section 1 203) for elderly persons. Under the 203 Program, DCTD will not serve trips that can be served by CAT unless a medical waiver is available. The Section 203 Program generates the largest demand for DCTD's service, however, other programs and social service I agencies also place demands on the service. Transportation is provided to and from all points within the I County and to places up to five miles outside of the County. DCTD , currently provides 18,000 to 20,000 trips a month. Special Efforts Transportation (SET) service is also provided I

~ to those handicapped residents within one-quarter mile of CAT's fixed-route service. This demand responsive service is provided , via a contract with a local taxicab company. The hours of I operation are identical to the fixed route along which the individual resides, i.e., if a fixed-route bus operates Monday- Friday 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., the handicapped service is 1 available. Regular taxi service is also available to most Dauphin County residents and is provided by a number of taxi companies. 1 INTERCITY BUS AND RAIL SERVICES I Greyhound and Trailways Bus Lines serve the Harrisburg Area and both companies have main terminals in downtown Harrisburg. Amtrack serves the Harrisburg Area with its terminal in I Harrisburg's central business district. A station is also located in Middletown. Service is provided to points east and west of the Harrisburg Area in Pennsylvania and to many other points outside of I the state. The state has completed a high speed rail study which I ,recommends that it move ahead with development of a high speed rail system that would connect Philadelphia and Pittsburgh while serving I , cities, including Harrisburg, that are between them.

8-9 I I I Although determined to be infeasible in the early 1980's, there continues to be support for a commuter, light rail system I between Carlisle and Hershey. CAT has applied to UMTA for partial funding of a Long Range Transit Alternatives, including commuter rail, study. I Rail freight service is provided primarily by Conrail, but two short line railroads, the Middletown and Hummelstown and the Steelton and Highspire, also serve the County. The Delaware and I Hudson, now in bankruptcy, has trackage rights from the north into the Enola Yards. Amtrack provides trackage rights to Conrail between Harrisburg and Philadelphia and Conrail provides trackage I rights to Amtrack west of Harrisburg. AVIATION I The Area is served by three airports, Capital City on the West Shore, Harrisburg International Airport (HIA) in Lower Swatara Township, and Bendigo Airport in Rush Township. HIA is the Area's I passenger facility while Capital City and Bendigo provide general aviation services. Capital City and HIA are currently owned and operated by PennDOT. Dauphin County has joined with other southcentral Pennsylvania counties in a regional airport authority which B intends to study the long-term need for expanded or new airport fac2lities. 1 Harrisburg is actively pursuing a plan to build a heliport near the downtown Area. A state-wide heliport plan has been developed and has identified a need for heliports in Harrisburg and I Hershey. SUMMARY I Dauphin County and the Region has a good transportation system in support of its role as state capital and as a major business center in Central Pennsylvania as well as the east coast. There I are some key highway projects that should be implemented so that the highway system can accommodate traffic demands created by the Area's growth. Two of these include the relocation of U.S. 221322, _~- from Dauphin to Speeceville and the widening of I 83 from 19th I Street to I 81. The County government's role in improving and operating the 1 transportation system will probably not change substantially in the near future. Again these roles and responsibilities include: 1) operating the Dauphin County Transportation Department and its paratransit services; 2) maintaining/improving County bridges; 3) I partial funding of Capitol Area Transit's (CAT) operating budget; 4) planning/programming work for federal-aid system highway improvements through involvement in HATS; 5) County Planning I Commission reviews/approvals of subdivision and land development plans and comments on municipal zoning and subdivision ordinances; and 6) possible involvement in a Transportation Authority to B address the need to expand air passenger facilities.

I 8-10 I n

PENN SYLVAN IA TRAFFIC VOLUME MAP

PREPARE0 BY THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE

IN COOPERATION WITH THE LEGEND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTERSTATE TRAFFIC ROUTE NUMBER

1991 UNITED STATES TRAFFIC ROUTE NUMBER

TYPE 14 PENNSYLVANIA TRAFFIC ROUTE NUMBER 3 -= FULL /PARTIAL INTERCHANGES 32000 TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS D 15 MILES - n 1MAP SCALE VOLUMES SHOWN ARE 1990 ANNUAL AVERAGE a DAILY TRAFFIC BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT L3 COUNT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ENLARGEMENT RATIO IS 2:l

I Chart 8-1 Functional Classification Information State Highways-Dauphin County I 1987 Percent 50 Total Linear Miles = 554 ,I Total Lane Miles = 004 Daily Veh. Miles of Travel = 3.378.991 40 ...... I 30 ......

20 ...... I 10 ...... I 0 Interstates Princ. Arterials Minor Arterials Collectors Locals I % Tot. Linear Miles Tot. Lane Miles % Tot. Daily Veh. Miles of Travel Source:PennDOT Roadway Management System I

Chart 8-2 I Federal-Aid System Mileage State Highways--Dauphin County 1987 I I PrimarvflJ) 13% ,.-, -- - 1 Secondary(R) 14% Interstate(U) 4% Interstate(R) 1% I

Urban Sys. 15% I V’ Non Federal-Aid 34% I Total Federal-Aid Mileage = 318 R=Rural & U=Urban Source:PennDOT Roadway Management System I I I ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL

Sub - -Limited Access/Interstate -Major Classif i- -Other Princ. Arterials -Minor cat ions -Minor Arterials

Mobility vs Mobility of utmost importance Mobility and land access of Land access of utmost Access equal importance importance

Trip Typically used for longer trips Short to medium distance Typically used for short trips Distance (inter and intra-state, inter- intra-regional trips & for and for accessing higher order region & longer intra-region & accessing arterial and local systems intra-County trips) systems

Traffic Highest volume roadways; Moderate volumes in general Low volume roadways Volumes moderate to high volumes on most arterials

Design Limited, partial and unlimited No access controls; moderate No access controls; Minimum Features access controls; widest ROW'S, to minimum ROW, cartway and ROW, cartway and shoulder cartways and shoulders; often shoulder widths; often 2 widths; often 2 lane 3 or 4 lane facilities lane facilities facilities

Speeds Typically 35-55 mph Typically 35-45 mph Typically 25 mph

Through/ Minimal interference to thru Balanced through and local Through travel discouraged; Local travel; local travel discouraged travel local travel encouraged Travel esp. on limited access roads

Re1 at ion Most important connections with Connects with Arterials and Primarily connects with other to Other other arterials and collectors Locals : locals and collectors sys tems usually via grade separated -Coll./Art. intersections -Most intersections of locals interchanges or signalized often signalized with other roadways are stop intersections -Coll./Local intersections controlled often stoD controlled - I TABLE 8-2 LOCAL FEDERAL AID SYSTEM ROADS - DAUPHIN COUNTY - STREET NAMEINUMBER FROM TO MUNlClPALrrY - AREBAAVENUE QOVERNOR ROAD HOCKERSVILLE RD DERRY I AREBAAVENUE COCOA AVENUE HOMESTEAD ROAD DERRY BRIARCREST DRIVE UNIVERSITY DRIVE AREBA AVE. DERRY BULLFROQ VALLEY ROAD GOVERNOR ROAD URBAN BOUNDARY DERRY CHURCHROAD FISHBURN ROAD URBAN BOUNDARY DERRY CLARK, SYLVANIA &GLEN RD. MIDDLETOWN RD. FISHBURN RD. DERRY I DERRY PARKAVENUE CEMETARY RD. DERRY DERRY ROAD 8 PARK BOULEVARD AIRPORT ROAD CHOCOLATE AVENUE DERRY ELM AVENUE QOVERNOR ROAD COCOA AVENUE DERRY HILL CHURCH RD, & MIDDLETOWN RD. BULLFROG VALLEY RD FISHBURN ROAD DERRY HOMESTEAD ROAD E. CHOCOLATE AVE FISHBURN ROAD DERRY I MADISON ROAD DERRY ROAD CHOCOLATEAVENUE DERRY UNIVERSITY DFilVE U.S. 422 QOVERNOR ROAD DERRY VALLEY ROAD CHOCOLATE AVENUE COCOA AVENUE DERRY FIDDLERS ELBOW ROAD W. MAIN STREET URBANBOUNDARY DERRY, HUMMELSTOWN 13TH STREET & ELLIOT STREET STATE STREET CAMERON STREET HARRISBURQ HARRISBURQ 1 ITTH STREET ARSENAL BOULEVARD SYCAMORE STREET IQTHSTREET MARKET STREET DERRY ST. HARRISBURQ 3RD STREET DIVISION STREET CHESTNUT STREET HARRISBURQ BTH STREET & COMMONWWTH AVE LINQLESTOWN ROAD WALNUT STREET HARRISBURQ 77" STREET DIVISION STREET FORSTER STREET HARRISBURQ BERRYHILL STREET CAMERON STREET HALE STREET HARRISBURQ I CHESTNUT STREET FRONT STREET 4TH STREET HARRISBURG DIVISION STREET 2ND STREET 7TH STREET HARRISBURQ HALE STREET MARKET STREET BERRYHILL ST. HARRISBURQ INDUSTRIAL ROAD LINQLESTOWN ROAD MACLAY STREET HARRISBURQ MARKET STREET CUMBERLAND CO. LINE MARKET ST. RD. HARRISBURG I NORTH STREET FRONT STREET COMMONWEALTHAVENUE HARRISBURQ RElLY STREET FRONT STREET 7TH STREET HARRISBURQ RUDY ROAD IQTHSTREET 2STH STREET HARRISBURG SENECA STREET FRONT STREET TFH STREET HARRISBURQ SYCAMORE STREET 13TH STREET PAXTON ST. HARRISBURQ I VAUQHN STREET FRONT STREET 6TH STREET HARRISBURQ WALNUT STREET FOURTH ST. FRONT STREET HARRISBURQ SECOND ST. PAXTON ST. DIVISION ST. HARRISBURG N. 2ND STREET N. FRONT STREET DIVISION ST. HARRISBURG, SUSQ. LUMBER STREET SECOND STREET FULLINQ MILL ROAD HIQHSPIRE, L. SWAT. I RAILROAD STREET DUKE STREET MAIN STREET HUMMELSTOWN WALNUT, 2ND AND DUKE STS. W. MAIN STREET HUMMELSTOWN RD. HUMMELSTOWN, S. HAN. ARLINQTON AVENUE LOCUST LANE LONDONDERRY ROAD LOWER PAXTON COLONIAL CLUB ROAD LINQLESTOWN ROAD LOCWLLOW ROAD LOWER PAXTON GOOSE VALLEY ROAD COLONIAL ROAD COLONIAL CLUB ROAD LOWER PAXTON I BALTHASER STREET LINQLESTOWN ROAD BLUE RlWE AVENUE LOWER PAXTON BLUE RIBBON AVENUE BLUE RIDQEAVENUE JONESTOWN ROAD LOWER PAXTON DNONSHIRE HTS, QFWE DVSHRE. FRMT NYES ROAD LYTERS LANE LOWER PAXTON EARL DRIVE COLONIAL ROAD LOCKWlLLOWROAD , LOWER PAXTON JOHNSON ROAD &BEAVER ROAD JONESTOWN ROAD DEVONSHIRE HTS ROAD LOWER PAXTON I JONESTOWN ROAD U.S. 22 BLUE RIBBON AVENUE LOWER PAXTON LYTERS LANE PAGE ROAD BTFH STREET LOWER PAXTON PRINCE STREET U.S. 22 LOCUST LANE LOWER PAXTON WENRICH. ERMAWOOD & CHELTON LINQLESTOWN ROAD BLUE RIBBON AVENUE LOWER PAXTON PAXTON CHUR, CRUMS ML. DWSHRE, & FRMT CROOKED HILL RD. COLONIAL RD. LOWER PAXTON, SUSQ. I DOEHN, CRUMS MILL, DVSHRE. & FRMT PROQRESSAVE. DEVONSHIRE HTS RD LOWER PAXTON, SUSQ. LONDONDERRY RD. WOOD ST. RUTHERFORD ROAD LOWER PAXTON, SUSQ. EAST PARK ROAD UHION DEPOSIT RD DERRY ST. LOWER PAXTON. SWAT. TWlN LAKES, WWHWR, QALION & 48TH UNION DEPOSIT RD. DERRYSTREET LOWER PAXTON, SWAT. 67TH ST. LYTERS LANE EVELYN STREET LOWER PAXTON, SWAT. PA LOWER SWATARA I ROSEDALE AVENUE LUMBER STREET 230 WHITE HOUSE LANE ROSEDALE AVENUE AIRPORT ROAD LOWER SWATARA AIRPORT ROAD WHITE HOUSE LANE QRANT STREET LOWER SWATARA. MTOWN COCKLEY ROAD CHAMBERS HILL ROAD OBERLIN ROAD LOWER SWAT., SWAT. ADELlA STREET MAIN STREET EMAUS STREET MIDDLETOWN EMAUS STREET WOOD STREET ADELlA STREET MIDDLETOWN I RACE STREET MAIN STREET EMAUS STREET MIDDLETOWN ROOSEVELT AVENUE UNION STREET VINE STREET MIDDLETOWN WLSON ST,QRANT ST, &A" ST W. MAIN STREET S. UNION STREET MIDDLETOWN KFfSTONE AVENUE WOOD STREET 5. UNION STREET MTOWN, ROYALTON SIMPSON, LNKER. MONTOUR, & BONNYMEADE PAXTANQ AVENUE DERRY ST. PAXTANQ, SWATARA I SHARON STREET PAXTANQ AVENUE LENKER RD. PAXTANQ, SWATARA HOFFER STREET WALNUT STREET 28TH STREET, PENBROOK ST FRM, LOCUST LN, 28TH ST. ELMERTON AVE. U.S. 22 PENBROOK, SUSQ. DERRY ST. & PLEASANT W. RD. 6lST ST. BRIDGE STREET S. HANOVER, SWAT. ORCHARD DRIVE,SWATARA ST. FRONT STREET PINE ST. STEELTON. SWAT. I 3RD STREET ESTHERTON AVENUE VAUQHN STREET SUSQUEHANNA CROOKED HILL RD & HAMMAKER DR LINQLESTOWN ROAD ELMERTON AVENUE SUSQUEHANNA EDQEMONT ROAD LOCUST LANE HERR STREET SUSQUEHANNA ESTHERTON AVENUE FRONT STREET 6TH STREET SUSQUEHANNA WOOD STREET LOCUST LANE UNION DEPOSIT ROAD SUSQUEHANNA 1 I 26TH STREET PAXTON STREET SYCAMORE ST. SWATARA 1 6STH STREET EVELYN STREET DERRY STREET SWATARA I BQTHSTREET EVELYN STREET DERRY STREET SWATARA EVELYN STREET 61ST STREET BgTH STREET SWATARA GIBSON BOULEVARD PA 441 HARRISBURG STREET SWATARA I HIGHLAND STREET & CUMBLER ST LIVINQSTON STREET CHAMBERS STREET SWATARA \STERLlNQ RD,CLOVER LANE OAK QROVE RD. GREEN HILLS RD. W. HANOVER - I I I

TABLE 8-3 I HIGHWAY MILEAGE BY MUNICIPALITY DAUPHIN COUNTY 1 STATE MILEAGE LOCAL MILEAGE TOTAL MILEAGE MILEAGE Oh OF CO. MILEAGE O/o OF CO. STATE/LOC MILEAGE Oh OF CO. MUNICIPALITY 3/30/86 STATE MI. 2/19/86 LOCAL MI. RATIO TOTAL MI. BERRY SBU RG 1.288 0% 4.00 0% 0.32 5.288 0% I CONEWAGO 18.509 3% 31.30 3% 0.59 49.809 DAUPHIN 2.110 0% 4.21 0% 0.50 6.320 DERRY 39.015 6% 79.51 7% 0.49 1 18.525 I EAST HANOVER 32.298 5% 52.80 5% 0.61 85.098 ELIZABETHVILLE 1.999 0% 6.42 1Oh 0.31 8.41 9 GRATZ 3.883 1Oh 6.56 1o/o 0.59 10.443 HALIFAX BOROUGH 0.832 0% 2.63 0% 0.32 3.462 I HALIFAX TWP. 22:567 4% 37.34 3% 0.60 59.907 HARRISBURG 34.758 5% 124.82 11% 0.28 159.578 HIGHSPIRE 1.775 0% 9.54 1Oh 0.19 11.315 I HUMMELSTOWN 4.325 1Oh 12.58 1Oh 0.34 16.905 JACKSON 23.590 40h 24.28 2% 0.97 47.870 JEFFERSON 10.160 2Oh 10.23 1Oh 0.99 20.390 LONDONDERRY 35.962 6% 44.99 4% 0.80 80.952 I LOWER PAXTON 47.224 7% 143.46 12% 0.33 190.684 1 LOWER SWATARA 21.432 3% 29.50 3% 0.73 50.932 LYKENS BOROUGH 2.368 OOh 7.54 1Oh 0.31 9.908 1 LYKENS TWP. 33.768 5% 33.67 3% 1.00 67.438 MIDDLE PAXTON 33.1 02 5% 27.21 2w 1.22 60.31 2 MIDDLETOWN 2.876 oo/o 21.63 2% 0.1 3 24.506 MlFFLlN 14.390 2% 24.37 2% 0.59 38.760 1 MILLERSBURG 1.697 0% 13.91 1Oh 0.12 15.607 PAXTANG 1.624 0% 7.45 1Oh 0.22 9.074 PENBROOK 2.821 0% 8.46 1Oh 0.33 11.281 1 PILLOW 1.393 0% 1.99 0% 0.70 3.383 REED 11.324 2% 3.93 0% 2.88 15.254 ROYALTON 0.658 0% 5.00 0% 0.13 5.658 RUSH 15.875 2% 3.63 0% 4.37 19.505 I SOUTH HANOVER 15.045 2% 29.48 3% 0.51 44.525 STEELTON 4.801 1Oh 14.17 1Oh 0.34 18.971 SUSOUEHANNA 41.962 7% 82.22 7% 0.5 1 124.182 1 SWATARA 44.535 7% 83.32 7% 0.53 127.855 UPPER PAXTON 32.833 5% 47.53 4% 0.69 80.363 WASHINGTON 20.649 3% 26.65 2% 0.77 47.299 I WAYNE 10.112 2% 17.47 2% 0.58 27.582 WEST HANOVER 26.940 4% 51.91 5% 0.52 78.850 WlCONlSCO 6.954 1Oh 6.08 1Oh 1.14 13.034 WILLIAMS 7.383 1o/o 6.86 1Oh 1.08 14.243 I WILLIAMSTOWN 0.935 0% 3.78 0% 0.25 4.715 0% TOTAL 635.772 1OOOh 1 152.43 100% 0.55 1788.202 100% I SOURCE PENNDOT - 1986 1 I 1

TABLE 8-4 DAUPHIN COUNTY BRIDGES - 1

NUM. BRIDGE NAME ROAD # ROAD NAME OVER (CREEK) MUNICIPALITY 01 FIDDLERS ELBOW T390 FIDDLERS ELBOW RD. SWATARA LOWER SWATARA I 02 SAUFFLEY FARM T431 DEVONSHIRE RD. MANADA E. & W. HANOVER 03 S. H. KLIN E T45 1 SHADY LANE BOW E. HANOVER 04 EARLY MILL T431 PHEASANT RD. BOW E. HANOVER 06 M. K.BOOS T614 CLIFF RD. MANADA E. HANOVER 1 07 BRESSLER FARM T441 CAMP HEBRON RD. POWELL’S HALIFAX 08 AARON STRAW T356 T356 POWELL‘S HALIFAX 09 CAMP HEBRON T55 1 CAMP HEBRON RD. POWELL’S HALIFAX a 10 URlCH SCHOOL T563 T563 ARMSTRONG HALIFAX 11 YEAGER FARM T454 T454 ARMSTRONG HALIFAX 12 CARSONVILLE T534 T534 N.FORK POWELL’S dEFFERSON I 13 T55 1 T55 1 FORKS JEFFERSON 14 GRUBB ST. GRUBB ST. SWATARA MIDDLETOWNlROYALTON 15 E. MIDDLETON T496 SWATARA CREEK IRON MINE LONDONDERRY 17 HEBE T65 1 T65 1 MAHANTANGO LYKENS I 18 SHIBE T636 DEER RUN RD. DEEP LYKENS 22 SINGERVILLE T686 SINGER LANE STONEY MIDDLE PAXTON 23 RED HILL T304 RED HILL RD. CLARKS MIDDLE PAXTON I 24 RElTZ FARM T631 RElTZ RD. LITTLE WlCONlSCO MlFFLlN 25 KESSLER FARM T556 KESSLER RD. LITTLE WlCONlSCO M IFFLlN 26 DEIBLER’S GAP T637 T637 MAHANTANGO M IFFLlN 27 SEAMAN T474 T474 MAHANTANGO MlFFLlN I 28 SHOOP T547 SHOOP RD. POWELL‘S REED 29 CREST VIEW MANOR T373 PLEASANT VIEW RD. BEAVER SWATARA 30 PORR’S BRIDGE T375 PLEASANT VIEW RD. BEAVER S. HANOVER 1 31 PLEASANT VIEW T375 PLEASANT VIEW RD. BEAVER SWATARA 32 POWER PLANT T690 DUKE ST. SWATARA HUMMELSTOWN 34 WOODSIDE T460 WOODSIDE RD. WlCONlSCO UPPER PAXTON 35 RIFE T466 ILS’ QUE RD. WlCONlSCO UPPER PAXTON I 37 GRANGE HALL T460 GRANGE HALL RD. LllTLE WlCONlSCO UPPER PAXTON 38 MALTA T482 S. MALTA RD. MAHANTANGO UPPER PAXTON 39 SHIFFERS MILL T464 SHIFFER RD. WlCONlSCO WASHINGTON I 40 COOPER FARM T462 FEIDT RD. WlCONlSCO WASHINGTON 41 MAlTlS MILL T595 DEIBLER RD. WlCONlSCO WASHINGTON 42 E. MAlTIS MILL T595 DEIBLER RD. WlCONlSCO WASHINGTON 43 HENNINGER FARM T624 HENNINGER RD. WlCONlSCO WASH INGTON I 44 ROMBERGER FARM T617 BUSH RD. WlCONlSCO WASH INGTON 45 PICNIC GROUNDS T585 OAKDALE STA. RD. WlCONlSCO WASHINGTON 46 LLOYD SHEETZ T448 T448 POWELL’S WAYNE i 47 LEBO T446 T446 POWELL’S WAYNE 48 JURY FARM T452 T452 POWELL’S WAYNE 49 READING DEPOT T551 MARKET ST. WlCONlSCO WlCONlSCO 50 BASEBALL PARK T707 ARCH ST. WlCONlSCO WlCONlSCO I 51 MACHAMER FARM T597 MACHAMER AVE. WICONISCO WlCONlSCO 52 CREEK RD. T601 ORANGE ST. WlCONlSCO WILLIAMS 53 FLlCKlNGER MILL T605 WATER ST. WlCONlSCO WILLIAMS 1 54 AQUADUCT KEYSTONE ST. SWATARA MlDDLETOWNlROYALTON 54N DANNER FARM T544 T544 ARMSTRONG JACKSON 55 BEVERLY T602 OLD HERSHEY RD. CONEWAGO CONEWAGO 1 56 NISSLEY’S MILL T301 ENGLE RD. CONEWAGO LONDONDERRY 57 POTTEIGERS T431 DEVONSHIRE HTS. RD. BEAVER W. HANOVEFUL.PAXTON 58~~ RED TOPlRlCKER FARM T407 RED TOP RD. BEAVER LOWER PAXTON - II I Table 8-5

Dauphin County - Twelve Year Program(l990-2002)** Highway and Bridge Projects (Sorted by Municipality)

co LINnl ROAD NAME/NIIMBER LOCATION LIMIT FROM LIMITTO PROJECl'DESCRIPTlON '90-2002 'S3-2000 TOTAL MUMClPALlTY YP. YP COST-.

-DAUPHIN BOR0.M. PAXTUN us. m22 DAUPHIN SPEE(EMLLB 4 LANB DN-RELOC4nON LST ISTRND 4SOW DERRY UNGLE AVE OVER WNRAlL BRIDOBREPIACEMBNT LST LST 623 DERRYIS. "OVER PA 39 OVER SWATARA CREEK BIUDGEREHABUTAllON 3RD 476 1 HAUFAX'IWP. TS63,URICi SCiOOLCB10 OVER ARMSTRONG CREEK BRIDoeReHAa 3RD 170 HARRISBUR0 THIRD ST. FORSTER ST. SENECAST. RESURFA(B ZND ZND 203 HARRISBUR0 7MST. HERRST. MAMYST. RBSURFA(B ZND 2ND 187 HARXISBURG HERR ST. OVER PAXTUN CREEK BFSDUEWL 3RD 915 HARRISBURG S. FRONTST. WNNeCmR SHIPOKe PAXTDN ST. S. FRONTST. 1 lANB REWTION ZND 1ST 696 HARRISBURG SYCAMORe ST. WRONST. i3m ST. ~SECIlONIMA(0~1ST ZND 1S3 HARRISBURG SYCAMOREST. OVER PAYTON CaEEK BRIDGE REPlAceMeNT 1ST ZND 479 HARRISBURG MARKET ST. 4m ST. zm ST. RESTURATION 2Nm ZND 349 HARRISBURO PAYTON ST. i3mST. 19m ST. SIGNAL IMAlOvBMwTS 1ST 29s HARRISBURG L7THST. PAXTON ST. ARSENALBLW RESTORAllON ZND ZND 196 HARRLSBURO 7mST. MAMYST. DMSION ST. RESURFAC3 ZND ZND 120 HARRISBUROlSUSOLEHANNA CAMERON STREET MAMK ELMERTON ADD CENT.LANElslGNALS LST 87s HARRISBURTLEMOYNE SOWBRIDGE SEWNDARY HANOBR swmm IST 3048 HIGHSPIRE PA 254 EISENHOWER BLW. BROAD ST. SIGNUIMAIO~ 1ST 1ST 143 HIGHSPIRE/L SWATARA PA no AT WHITEHOUSELANE WRS SIGNALIMPRO~ 1ST 1ST 18 HUMMELSTOWN DUKE ST. OVER SWATARACREEK BRIDOB REPLACPMENT 3RD 3RD I901 JEFFERSON TSSL.MOUNTALNRG..CBL3 OVER S. FORK-POWEUS CREEK BRIDGE REHABUTATION 3RD 152 WWONDERRY BRINSER RD. OVER AMlRAK BRIDGE REPLA(zM@NT 1ST 3RD 611 WNDONDERRY PA 341 OVER IRON RUN IRIBUTARY BRIDGE REPUceMENT 1ST ZND 325 LOWERPAXmN UNION DEPOSITRD. OVER NYES RUN BRIDGE REPLACEMBNT ZND mu 278 LOWER PAXTUN JONESTOWN RD. OVER BEAVER WEEK BRIDGE REPLAceMENT 3RD 330 LOWERPAYTON Pemizs~ANE OVER SPRING O(REEK BRIDCiE REPLACEMENT 3RD 184 wwm PAXTON RED TOP RD. OVER BEAVER CREEKTRIBWARY BRIDOE REHABWTATION 3RD 38s LDWER PAXTON I 83 OVER VALLEY ROAD BFSDUE DBCICREPLAZMZNT LST 7.210 WWER PAXTON I 83 DERRY STRE@T UNlOND6POSlTROAD WIDEN TO 72 FEET 1ST 113W LOWER SWATARA PA 283 ATN. UNIONSIREET ADD RAMPS 2ND mu 2081 LYKPJS WP. DBEP CR. ?RIB. BRIDGE OVER DEEP CREEK BRIDGBREPLACEMBNT 1ST IS2 38s MIDDLE PAXTUN TMI.REDHIILCB23 OVER MRKS CREEK BRme REHABUTATION ~RD 300 MDDLE PAYTON PA 443 OVER RSWNG CREEK BRlDcieREHABILITAllON ZND ZND 219 MIDDLE PAXTON PA 325 OVER aARKS CREEK BRIDGe REPLAaWzNT ZND LOSO MIDDLE PAYTON UTERBLW. PA ?u OVER aARKS CREEK BRIDOE REPLA(zMENT IST 1170 MIDDLE PAYTON T686,SlNGERLANF!,CB22 OVER STONY CREEK BIUDQE REHABUTATION 3RD 449 MIDDLE PAXTON PA 443 OVER RSHLNO CREEK BRIDGE REHABUITATION ZND ZND 219 MIDDLE PAXTUN PA 443 OVER RSHING CREEK BRIDGE DESXREHABILITATION 2ND ZND 2.50 MIDDLE PAXTON PA 443 OVER FISHING CREEK BFSDUEREHABUTAnON ZND ZND 189 MIDDLETOWN WILSON ST. OVER AMIRAK BRIDGE REHABIUTATIGN LST ZND 241s I MDDLETOWN/ROYALTON GRIJBB ST.. W.BR. 14 OVFR SWATARA CXEEK BFSDUEREHABUTATION LST 1ST 1946 PAXTANGlSWATARA GERRY ST. PAXTANG AVe BAST PARKDR SIGNALIMPROV€M@NT 1ST 1ST 264 REED TSI'I,SHOOPFARM,CB28 OVER POWELLS CREEK BRIDGE REHABUTATION 3RD 4s 1 s. "OVER HOEWERSTOWN RD. OVER KELLOCX RUN S. OFSTOW MILLRD. BRIDGE REPLACPMENT 1ST 1ST 899 I s. "OVER SHETIAND DR. OVER MANADA CREZK BRIDGE REPLACEMBNT IST 3RD 469 S'IEELTON PA 230 RUNKLfN ST. SWAT- ST. SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT LST 1ST 114 SUSQUEHANNA OEORGE WADE BRIDGE SECONDARY HANGER SUPPORTS LST S592 SUSQLEHANNA PROGRESS AVE. VAUEY RD. KO" RD. ITERSECIlON IMA(0VEMPITS LST 1737 SWATARA PARK DRIVE UNDER OONRAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 3RD 20w t SWATARA EISENHOWER BLVD. UNDLE RD. HIGHLAND ST. SIGNALh(PR.KZNTLEFTUNB 1ST IST 642 SWATWERRY U.S. 3W422 OVER SWATARA CREEK BRlDGB REHABUTATION LST 3RD 2216 UPPER PAYTON RIFE BRIDGE. TWCBU OVER wwmsw CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ZND 517 VARIOUS I 83 IVTHST. I81 WIDEN TU 72 FEBT 3RD 40503 VARIOUS I81 CUMBBRlAND W. LEBANON W. RESTORAllON LST 37510 w. "OVER PA 443 OVER RSHING CREEK BRIDGE DeCK REHABCUTATION ZND ZND 2-54 WASHINGTON us. zm (ZBRLDGES) omwcomsw CREEK BRIDGE REPLACPMENT LST LST 91s WASHINGTON HENNNGER FARM ERG. WBR. OVER WWNISW CREEK 600sWLAOWENT ZND 3RD 424 WAYNE ST. OVER mwu. CREEK BRIDGBREPLA(ZMENT 2ND 2ND 316 1 WAYNE WAYWSWRD T-SSI OVER POWELLS CREEK NWR WAYNESVIUB BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1ST LST ?a7 WIWMSW ARCHSTREETT 707 OVER wwmsw CREEK mmeREPLA- 3RD 339 I WUAMS 346 CHAPTER 9 EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES A wide variety of community facilities and services are provided to Dauphin County residents, including educational, health, recreational, emergency, public water, public sewerage, solid waste management, and utility facilities and services. Factors influencing the need for and the provision of these services is dependent on the types and density of development, the composition and distribution of the residential population, and the financial resources and ability of County municipalities to support the range of facilities that are needed. The purpose of this section is to describe community facilities and services provided to the County. The discussion is primarily concerned with the existing characteristics and functional adequacy of these facilities. The adequacy and availability of these facilities are a reflection on the quality, convenience, and general character of the County as a place to live. EDUCATION FACILITIES Dauphin County is served by public and private primary and secondary educational facilities, and state and private higher education facilities. In addition to identifying the location of these facilities, the following discussion will provide characteristics of the public school districts; their service area, current and future enrollments, and projected needs. Public Primary and Secondary Education Local government, including County government, has very little impact on private educational facilities, in contrast to the very important role local government plays with public facilities. The public is dependent on the municipalities and the educational system’s ability to work together to continually assess the effect of growth patterns on the adequacy of the educational system. The effects of declining or increasing school age populations may have a dramatic impact on the provision of services and capacity of existing facilities. Ten (10) school districts serve Dauphin County (See Map 9.1). In October 1989, a survey of the Dauphin County School Districts, conducted by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, provided descriptive information regarding the existing status of these districts. Table 9-1 has been developed from this information. Sixty-nine facilities are located in the County, including forty- five (45) elementary schools (pre-kindergarten or kindergarten to fifth or sixth grades), seven (7) middle schools (sixth to eighth grades), three (3) junior high schools (seventh to ninth grade) , two (2) junior/senior highs and one middle/senior high, and ten (10) high schools (ninth or tenth to twelfth). As of September, 1989, total enrollment for the nine school districts equalled 9-1 approximately 33,646 students (See Table 9-1). The three largest school districts by enrollment are Central Dauphin, Harrisburg City, and Lower Dauphin. Central Dauphin, which is also the largest district in terms of area, has 9,022 students in eighteen schools. The City of Harrisburg School District has 8,732 students in seventeen schools, and the Lower Dauphin district has 3,388 students in seven schools. The smallest school district is Millersburg Area, with 1,022 students in three facilities. (School facility locations are contained on Maps 9-1 through 9-11). Over the past ten years, 1978-1988, six out of the ten school districts reported decreased enrollments. The greatest declines have occurred in the Central Dauphin (-13 percent), Harrisburg City (-13 percent) and Susquehanna Township School Districts (-10.3 percent), all having experienced at least a ten percent drop in enrollment over the ten year period. Two districts reported an increase in enrollment from 1978-1988: Upper Dauphin Area (+15 percent) and Halifax Area (+2.4 percent) . Steelton-Highspire district enrollment remained unchanged during this period. 1978- 1988 information for the Derry Township district is unavailable. However, enrollment projections for most of the school districts indicate that declining trends over the past ten years are not expected to continue over the next five years, reflecting in part the residential building growth of recent years. All of the districts project enrollment increases from 1989-1994, with the exception of the Harrisburg City and Steelton-Highspire districts, which expect enrollments to remain unchanged over the period. The greatest percentage increases are projected by the Susquehanna Township, Central and Lower Dauphin, and Halifax Area School Districts (percentage figures for Derry Township are unavailable, although an increase is expected). The growth or decline of enrollment has an impact on the physical and financial status of the districts. The distribution of enrollment as shown on Table 9-1 reveals the breakdown of the student population by grade level. This breakdown is an indication of what may be expected (given no new developments which would add considerable student populations) over the next decade; particularly to the middle and high school levels. An even distribution indicates, under present conditions, the districts should not expect many changes in enrollment figures or distribution in the middle and high schools over the next five years. The greater the enrollment variation between grade levels, the greater impact on the future enrollments at the middle (junior) and high school level. Most of the districts in Dauphin County exhibit relatively even grade distributions. Therefore, class size and space availability at the secondary school levels is not expected to be greatly affected by grade distribution in these districts.

9-2 TABLE 9-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY SCHM)L DISTRICTS

NAME OF SCHOOL CURRENT 1; CHANGE IN DISTRIBUTION OF ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL SCHOOLS IN ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT ACTUAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT (t OF TOTAL) DISTRICT LMJ HIGH ENROLLMENT 1979-1989 1989-1994 KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECONO THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH SPECIAL CAPACITY CAPACITY PROJECTED CENTRAL DAUPHIN 9,022 -13.0 t13.0 670 780 727 735 651 730 660 691 714 638 618 596 614 198 CENTRAL DAUPHIN H.S. (7.14 (8.6) (8.1) (8.1) (7.2) (8.1) (7.3) (7.7) (7.9) (7.1) (6.8) (6.6) (6.8) (2.2) CENTRAL DAUPHIN EAST H.S. OF TOTAL) SWATARA JR. H.S. CENTRAL DAUPHIN E. JR H.S. LINGLESTOWN JR. H.S. N/A N/A N/A LINGLESTOWN E.S. PAXTONIA E.S. E. H. PHILLIPS E.S. SOUTH SIOE E.S. NORTH SIDE E.S. MOUNTAIN VIEW E.S. MIDDLE PAXTON E.S. PAXTANG E.S. RUTHERFORD E. 5. CHAMBERS HILL E.S. WEST HANOVER E.S. FISHING CREEK VALLEY E.S. TRI COMMUNITY E.S.

OERRY TMJNSHIP 2.299 N/A NIA 158 210 167 187 190 175 177 182 138 178 160 181 196 N/A M.S. HERSHEY SENIOR H.S. N/A N/A (6.9) (9.1) (7.3) (8.1.) (8.3) (7.6) (7.7) (7.9) (6.0) (7.7) (7.0) (7.9) (8.5) M.S. HERSHEY MIDDLE SCHWL (INCLUDES INTERM. E.S.) M.S. HERSHEY PRIMARY E.S. 722

HALIFAX AREA 1,353 t2.4 i13.0 104 108 122 112 123 93 107 105 100 122 78 72 100 7 HALIFAX AREA HIODLEl 7 52 951 6B4a (7.7) (8.0) (9.0) (8.3) (9.1) (6.9) (7.9) (7.8) (7.4) (9.0) (5.8) (5.3) (7.4) (.52) SR. H.S. ENDERS-FISHERVILLE E .S. 225 300 212a HALIFAX AREA E.S. 440 52 5 457

HARRISBURG CITY 8,732 -10.0 tO.0 1107 865 717 648 628 590 526 571 513 649 496 412 411 599 HP!R!S8!RG U.S.: (12.7) (9.9) (8.2) (7.4) (7.2) (6.8) (6.0) (6.5) (5.9) (7.4) (5.7) (4.7) (4.7) (6.9) JOHN HARRIS 1255 1497 1356 WILLIAM PENN 525 82 5 766 HARRISBURG MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1400 2200 1570 (SCOTT & ROWLANO INTERM.) RIVERSIDE SCH OF THE ARTS 108 130 80c CAMERON ST VOC PREP SCH 140 220 109a HAMILTON E.S. 232 365 426b NARSHALL E.S. 232 364 375b STEELE E.S. 309 486 390 WOODWARO E.S. 196 308 252 MELROSE E.S. , 386 607 555 BEN FRANKLIN E.S. 34 0 534 309a LINCOLN EARLY CHILDHOOD 36 1 567 495 CENTER (ECC) SHIMHELL ECC 298 469 477b DOWNEY ECC 293 461 359 FOOSE ECC 458 719 612 CAMP CURTIN ECC . 564 887 679 -. TABLE 9-1 (continued) NAME OF SCHOOL CURRENT 4 CHANGE IN SCHOOLS IN ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT ACTUAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION OF ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL DISTRICT LOW HIGH ENROLLMENT ()I OF TOTAL) 1979-1989 1989-1994 KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH SPECIAL CAPACITY CAPACITY PROJECTED LOWER DAUPHIN 3,388 -5.94 +10.0 293 278 253 265 256 275 255 256 246 232 229 226 229 95 LOWER DAUPHIN JR/SR H.S. 1432 1718 1418a (8.6) (8.2) (7.5) (7.8) (7.6) (8.1) (7.5) (7.6) (7.3) (6.8) (6.8) (6.7) (6.8) (2.8) CONEWAGO E.S. 200 240 221 E. HANOVER E.S. 315 378 412b ANNIE 8. NYE E.S. 220 264 205a LONWNOERRY E. 5. 605 726 518a S. HANOVER E.S. 325 390 399b ELIZ. 2. PRICE E.S. 255 306 215a

MIODLETOWN AREA 2,633 -8.0 +3.0 336 167 201 205 201 188 168 207 176 220 176 179 209 (INCL. IN MIDOLETWN AREA H.S. 989 1188 7B4a (12.8) (6.3) (7.6) (7.8) (7.6) (7.1) (6.4) (7.9) (6.7) (8.4) (6.7) (6.8) (7.9) TOTALS) GEORGE W. FEASER M.S. 392 711 551 ALICE DEMEY E.S. 615 738 435 JOHN C. KUNKEL E.S. 4 30 516 424a GEO. D. MANSBERGER E.S. 200 240 10% LYALL J. FINK E.S. 350 420 334a

MILLERSBURG AREA 1,022 -5.0 5.0 93 85 65 81 76 85 63 76 71 84 52 5a 59 65 (9.1) (8.3) (6.4) (7.9) (7.4) (8.3) (6.2) (7.4) (6.9) (8.2) (5.1) (5.7) (5.8) (6.4) MILLERSBURG AREA MIDOLE SCH I VO TECH 9 & SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 903 1084 518a (.9) LENKERVILLE E.S. 540 648 504a

STEELTON-HIGHSPIRE 1,514 tO.0 +O.O 200 103 114 102 100 92 79 124 99 100 92 87 102 120 STEELTON-HIGHSPIRE SR/JR H.S. 1002 1202 604a (13.2) (6.8) (7.5) (6.7) (6.6) (6.1) (5.2) (8.2) (6.5) (6.6) (6.1) (5.7) (6.7) (7.9) STEELTON-HIGHSPIRE E.S. 1000 1200 804a

SUSQUEHANNA TWP. 2,184 -10.3 t18.2 137 191 158 179 190 162 148 144 135 153 165 156 144 52 SUSQUEHANNA TWP. H.S. 1006 1208 726a (6.3) (8.7) (7.2) (8.2) (8.7) (7.4) (6.8) (6.6) (6.2) (7.0) (7.6) (7.1) (6.5) (2.4) & SUSOUEHANNA TWP. MID. SCH 955 1147 600a VO TECH 70 HERBERT HOOVER E.S. 600 720 382a (3.2) SARA LINOEMUTH E.S. 4 00 480 222a

UPPER DAUPHIN AREA 1,499 +KO 40.5 98 112 102 101 112 115 132 120 122 114 129 108 109 25 UPPER DAUPHIN AREA H.S. 637 765 565a (6.5) (7.5) (6.8) (6.7) (7.5) (7.7) (8.8) (8.0) (8.1) (7.6) (8.6) (7.2) (7.3) (1.7) UPPER DAUPHIN AREA 628 754 495a MIDDLE SCHOOL BERRYSBURG E.S. 90 120 113 GRATZ E.S. 120 i40 127 ELIZABETHVILLE E.S. 165 180 201b LYKENS E.S. 165 180 165

N/A - INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE. a - REPRESENTS ENROLLMENT BELOW LOW CAPACITY. b - REPRESENTS ENROLLMENT ABOVE HIGH CAPACITY. C - REPRESENTS 80 STUDENTS A.M. AND 80 STUDENTS P.M.

SOURCE: TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, "DAUPHIN COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES QUESTIONNAIRE", 1989 The decline in enrollment over the past ten years reported by some of the County's school districts has contributed to a number of facilities operating below the low pupil capacity. Twenty-two (22) schools in districts reporting the information were operating below capacity during the 1988-89 school year (NOTE: facility capacity information was not available for the Central Dauphin and Derry Township districts). Six (6) schools were reported as operating above the high pupil capacity, all elementary schools: Hamilton, Marshall, and Shimmell ECC (Harrisburg City), East and South Hanover (Lower Dauphin) and Elizabethville (Upper Dauphin). Additions and/or renovations are planned at most of these schools. Also, the Upper Dauphin district plans to open a new elementary school in September 1990. Table 9-2 describes school district future needs and renovation plans, as reported in the Tri-County Planning Commission's 1989 Survey. Study of options to deal with population growth is the primary concern listed by the school districts. One district, Steelton-Highspire, reported concern about the fixed taxed base and little increase in personal income within the district. Many of the school districts have undertaken long-range planning studies to address these future needs. Vocational Education There are two vocational technical schools in Dauphin County: The Harrisburg-Steelton-Highspire Technical School, supported by the Harrisburg City and Steelton-Highspire school districts, and the Dauphin County Technical School, sponsored by the following six districts: Central Dauphin, Derry Township, Halifax Area, Lower Dauphin, Middletown Area and Susquehanna Township. The VoTech schools offer high school students a certificate of completion upon graduation. Their curriculums offer a wide range of programs including trades/ industrial, business, health, food service, distributive education, cosmetology, and child care. The Harrisburg-Steelton-Highspire Technical School is located at the William Penn Campus of the Harrisburg High School. Enrollment is currently 754 students. Students attend half day academic sessions and half day vocational training. There are no plans for future expansion. The Dauphin County Technical School is located at 6001 Locust Lane in Lower Paxton Township. It enrolls students in grades 10-12 with a special program for ninth graders. It offers a full time program including academic study, and currently has an enrollment of 731 students. There are no plans to expand the facility.

9-5 TABLE 9-2 SCHOOL DISTRICT FUTURE NEEDS/ RENOVATION PLANS District Future Need/Renovation Plans Central Dauphin In design phase for following projects: - Middle Paxton Elementary - demolish and construct new elementary school for 1991-92. - Lawnton Elementary - take back from Intermediate Unit. Major renovations and additions for 1990- 1991. - Swatara Jr. High and East Sr. High - major renovations and additions, 1990-91 and 1991-92. District also has 17 relocatable classrooms to deal with overcrowded schools. Derry Township Addition to and renovation of Hershey Primary Elementary School, to be completed by September 1990, due to increasing enrollment. Anticipate possible additional building in the future due to population growth within district. Halifax Area Study of additional classroom requirements due to continuing population growth in the district is needed. Harrisburg City Proposed major and minor renovation projects at the following schools: Camp Curtin ECC, Foose ECC, Downey ECC, Marshall Elementary, Steele Elementary, Woodward Elementary, John Harris H.S. and William Penn High School. Lower Dauphin Planned additions to all district buildings and total renovation of older sections of buildings. Asbestos removal. Project to be completed by 1991. Concern about impact of increased growth in East Hanover Township. Continued need for staff development in a climate of declining resources. Middletown Area Renovation of Middletown Area High School. Asbestos removal at all buildings. Maintenance of all elementary schools.

9-6 3

TABLE 9-2 (continued) SCHOOL DISTRICT FUTURE NEEDS/ RENOVATION PLANS District Future Need/Renovation Plan Millersburg Area Addition of approximately six (6) classrooms to Lenkerville Elementary due to district growth. Studying renovation/room addition to Middle/High schools. Steelton-Highspire Concern about fixed tax base and little increase in personal income within district. Issue of possible merger with another district. Susquehanna Twp. Currently expanding and renovating Herbert Hoover Elementary and Sara Lindemuth Elementary due to increased enrollment in grades K-5. Upper Dauphin Area Complete renovation of Upper Dauphin Area High School to be completed by September 1990. New elementary school (Upper Dauphin Elementary School) projected to open September 1990. These projects address district growth and educational needs.

SOURCE: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "Dauphin County Educational Facilities Questionnaire, 1989.

Vocational study is also offered to Harrisburg City students in grades six through twelve who are not prepared to attend the other campuses, at the Cameron Street Vocational Prep School. Non-Public Education In addition to public elementary and secondary education, there are many non-public educational facilities. The Pennsylvania Department of Education separates these facilities into licensed private academic schools, and non-public elementary and secondary schools. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education's Directory of Licensed Private Academic Schools, 1988, there are twenty-four licensed facilities located in Dauphin County. These schools provide a variety of educational services: nursery, kindergarten, and elementary education; summer sessions and tutoring; diagnostic/valuative remedial services; and special education for the brain-damaged, socially and emotionally disabled and physically handicapped individual. Table 9-3 lists the licensed private schools, addresses, and type of services. 9-7 I

Twenty-six (26) non-public elementary and secondary schools i also serve County residents. The majority of these schools are 1 affiliated with a religious group. Table 9-4 lists these schools and addresses. Hiqher Educathn I .. c According to.the Pennsylvania Department of Education, higher education is provided at seven Dauphin County institutions. Table 8 9-5 provides descriptive information regarding these facilities. Of these higher education facilities, two are affiliated with the Pennsylvania State University: The Harrisburg Campus in I Middletown, offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and the specialized Hershey Medical Center in Hershey. The private National Educational Center and the Palmer School offer a variety I of degrees and certificates in business-related occupations. The Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) provides two year programs/degrees for residents in the Harrisburg region. Also, I Temple University has a small center city campus located in the City of Harrisburg offering graduate courses in a limited curriculum. And, finally Widner University has a Harrisburg Campus located in Susquehanna Township offering academic programs leading I to both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Other facilities of higher education conveniently located to I Dauphin County include: Shippensburg University, Dickinson Law I School, Dickinson College, Messiah College and Central Pennsylvania ' Business School (Cumberland County), Elizabethtown College, Franklin and Marshall College, and Millersville University 1 (Lancaster County), York College of Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania ' State University-York Campus (York County), Lebanon Valley College (Lebanon County), Pennsylvania State University-Schuykill Campus I ' (Schuylkill County), and various other business schools and specialized degree-granting institutions. 1 I 1 I 1 I

9-8 I II TABLE 9-3 LICENSED PRIVATE ACADEMIC SCHWLS FOR 1908

NAllE OF ADDRESS BRAIN- PBYSICALLY DIAGNOSTIC/ KINDER- ELEUENTAUY SOCIALLY AND SUMPIER TUTORING NURSERY FACILITY DAMAGED EANDI- EVALUATIVE GARTEN EUOTIONWY SESSION CAPPED REMEDIAL DISABLED CENTER

X BARRISBDRG

DPRRY PLAYSCBWL, INC. 335 E. AREBA AYE. X BERSHEY

DISCOVERY SCBWL 1001 CRAnBER BILL ROAD X X X BIRRISBDRG

DOWNTOWN DAY CARE, INC. 21 S. RIVER STREET X BIRRISBURG

241 E. WATER STREET X MIDDLETOW

EARLY DISCOVERY 1900 CONSTITUTIUN AVENUE X BARRISBURG

GROW?,NC PLACES, INC. 6006 JONESTOWN ROAD X X BIRRISBURG

BANSEL AND GRETEL 5109 RIDGE VIEW DRIVE X X X LEARNING CENTER 2206 WALNUT STREET X X X X 4820 LONDONDERRY ROAD X X (ALL IN BARRISBURG)

JEYISE CM(IIIJN1TY 100 VAUGEN STREET X CENZER NURSERY HARRISBURG KRIDERCARTEN

KINDER-CARE 667 CHERRY DRIVE X LEARNING CENTER HERSBEY

LITTLP PEOPLE DAY CARE 1075 LONDONDERRY ROAD X X HARRISBURG

UJNWNDERRY SCBWL 2991 LOCUST LANE X X BIRRISBURG

numstum COIDIONITY NORSERY SCBWL

NEIGBBOREWD DAY CARE 501 SENECA STREET X CENTERS, INC. BARRISBURG

worn 1605 GEYERS CHURCB SnALL ROAD X MIDDLETOWN

STEPPPINC STONE, INC. 6003 JONESTOWN ROAD X X X EARRISBORG

STRAWBERRY GWEN 1616 BERR STREET X DAY CARE CENTER BARRISBURG

SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER 2213 FOREST HILL X RARRISBURG

AND TOWN COUNTRY 2910 BRISBAN STREET X X X X DAY SCHOOL BIRRISBURG

TRI-COUNTY EASTER SEAL 2930 DERRY STREET X. X SOCILTY TOR BANUICAPPED RARRISBURG TABU 9-3 (CONT'D) LICENSED PRIVATE ACADEWIC SCHOOLS FOR 1988

r O%ROW NORSenr mm 6 RAILROAD STREETS X X EDUUELSTOh"

X~IVA.ACMEUY.,.. . loo VACGHN STREET x x.mo or ~ARRISBORG IURRISBDRG . SECONDARY

Source: PsnnaYlVMla kpartmnt of Education, Directory of Licensed Private Academic Schools, 1988. I

TABLE 9-4 NON-PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS I 1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR 1988-1989 Total I Name of Facility Address Enrollment Berrysburg Christian Academy R.D. 1, Box 280, Elizabethville 28 Cathedral School Liberty & Church Sts, Harrisburg 200 1 Middletown Christian School Spruce ti Emaus Sts, Middletown 67 Central Branch YMCA Front and North Sts, Harrisburg 5 Christian School Assoc. 2000 Blue Mt. Parkway, Harrisburg 330 Harrisburg Seventh Day 1 Adventist Jr. Academy 424 N. Progress Avenue, Harrisburg 42 Hillside Seventh Day Adventist School 1301 Cumberland St., Harrisburg 19 Holy Family School 555 S. 25th St., Harrisburg 248 I Holy Name of Jesus School 6190 Allentown Blvd., Harrisburg 820 Linglestown United Methodist Christian School 1430 N. Mountain Rd., Linglestown 9 Lykens Christian School R.D. #1, Lykens 42 1 Matterstown School Elizabethville 38 Milton S. Hershey School PO Box 830, Hershey 1,087 Mt. View Christian School 34 Sipe Avenue, Hummelstown 186 No. Mt. View Amish Millersburg 8 1 Ngozi Institute 610 Maclay Street, Harrisburg 7 Penbrook Learning Center 51 Banks Street, Harrisburg 6 Seven Sorrows BVM School Race & Conewago Streets, Middletown 222 St. Catherine Laboure School 4020 Derry Street, Harrisburg 316 I St. Joan of Arc School 329 W. Areba Avenue, Hershey 246 St. John Neuman Cons. School Reynders and Swatara, Steelton 199 St. Margaret Mary School 2826 Herr Street, Harrisburg 445 St. Stephens Episcopal School 215 North Front Street, Harrisburg 123 I South Mt. View School Gratz 18 Bishop McDevitt High School 2200 King Blvd., Harrisburg 805

NOTE: The licensed private academic schools listed in Table 9-3 which could also be I included in this Table have been deleted. SOURCE : Pennsylvania Department of Education, Non-Public Schools - Elementary I Enrollments, Non-Public Schools - Secondary Enrollments, 1988-1989. I 1 1 1 I

1 9-11 I TABLE 9-5 HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES DAUPHIN COUNTY DAUPHIN COUNTY [Name of Facility Locat ion En ro 1 lment-

(HarrisburgArea Community College 3300 Cameron St./Road, Harrisburg 6,429 !Pennsylvania State University Rte 230, Middletown 3,089 I Harrisburg Campus Pennsylvania State University- 500 University Drive, Hershey 732 Medical Center National Education Center - 5620 Derry Street, Harrisburg 440 Thomas Institute Campus Palmer School, Inc. 3350 Paxton Street, Harrisburg 530 Widner University 3800 Vartan Way, Harrisburg Harrisburg Campus Temple University 223 Walnut Street, Harrisburg Harrisburg Campus

SOURCE : Pennsylvania Department of Education, Hiqher Education Fall Enrollments - 1987.

LIBRARIES A great source of cultural, technical and general information from the past, present and for the future in the community can be found in its libraries. Dauphin County has numerous general use public libraries (See Table 9-6) as well as specialized type libraries (See Table 9-7). The locations of the public libraries are shown on Maps 9-12 and 9-13 (or the Public/ Semi-public Services Map). In 1989, The Dauphin County Library System (DCLS) marked its 100th year of service to county residents. The DCLS's nine libraries provide information, formal education support, and independent learning ,resources as well as popular and reference research materials. 22n example of DCLS' s public programs is the Childrens Summer Reading Program, which was attended by more than 1,000 children in 1988. According to the Dauphin County Library System's 1988 report, People, Proqress and Projections, the DCLS libraries annually lend over 750,000 items, answer nearly 48,000 reference questions, issue 17,000 new library cards and acquire and process 31,000 new items. Over half a million people visit the facilities in a year. The DCLS is used extensively; between 1978 and 1988 circulation 'oflibrary materials nearly doubled. As a result of the increasing use and rise in public attendance, two major building expansion projects began in 1988: the doubling of public space at the East Shore Area and

9-12 I

Elizabethville Area Libraries. The DCLS anticipates a need and desire 1 to initiate similar expansion projects during the 1990's. I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I t 1 1

9-13 TABLE 9-6 DAUPHIN COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM

1CENTRA.L BRANCH LIBRARY JOHNSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY 101 Walnut St East Center Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Millersburg, PA 17061 717 234-4961 717-692-2658

#EAST SHORE AREA BRANCH LIBRARY KLINE VILLAGE BmCH LIB. 4501 Ethel Street Kline Village Shop. Center Harrisburg, PA 17109 Hard-sburg, PA 17104 717-234-3934 ELIZABETHVILLE AREA BRANCH LIB. NORTHER DAUPHIN BRANCH LIBRARY 80 North Market St., RT 225 571 North 2nd Street Elizabethville, PA 17023 Lykens, PA 17048 717-362-9825 717-453-9315

HARRISBURG UPTOWN BRANCH WILLIAMSTOWN BRANCH LIBRARY 2940 North 7th Street 119 East Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Williamstown, PA 17098 717-232-7286 717-647-2129

HUMMELSTOWN COMMUNITY LIBRARY 205 S. John Street Hummelstown, PA 17036 717-566-0949

OTHER PUBLIC LIBRARIES

DERRY TOWNSHIP PAXTANG HERSHEY PUBLIC LIBRARY PAXTANG SWATARA AREA 30 East Granada Avenue COMMUNITY LIBRARY Hershey, PA 17033 3700 Rutherford Street 717-533-6555 Harrisburg, PA 17111 717-564-0385 'MIDDLETOWN MIDDLETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY 20 North Catherine Street Middletown, PA 17057

,SOURCE: Directory, Pennsylvania Libraries, 1988-198'9, Peiiiisylvania Department of Education

9-14 TABLE 9-7 SPECIALIZED LIBRARIES - DAUPHIN COUNTY

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES Harrisburg Campus - Penn State University The George T Harrell Library, Milton S Hershey Medical Center Thompson Campus, National Education Center

JUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE LIBRARIES Harrisburg Area Community College, McCormick Library LAW LIBRARIES Auditor General's Law Library Commonwealth Court Law Library Community Affairs Dept Office of Legal Services Law Library Dauphin County Law Library Department of Environmental Resources Law Library Department of Public Welfare Legal Office Library Department of Revenue Law Library Department of Transportation Law Library Governor's Office of Budget Library Joint State Government Commission Library Keefer, Wood, Allen, Rahal McNees, Wallace and Nurick Nauman, Smith, Shissler and Hall Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau Library Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency Library Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission Library Public Utility Commission Library Senate Library of Pennsylvania State Police Academy Library Supreme and Superior Court Library Tive, Hetrick and Pierce

SPECIAL LIBRARIES Amp Corporate Library Board of Probation and Parole Community General Osteopathic Hospital Harrisburg Hospital Health and Welfare Library Hershey Foods Corporation Hershey Medical Center Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Library Pennsylvania Legal Services Center Patriot News Library Polyclinic Medical Center

STATE SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS Harrisburg State Hospital

SOURCE: Directory, Pennsvlvania Libraries 1988-1989, Pennsylvania Department of Education

9-15 !MUSEUMS The following museums are located in Dauphin County:

Fort Hunter Museum The State Museum of Pa. 5300 North Front Street Third and North Streets Harrisburg Harrisburg Museum of Scientific Dorthea Dix Museum Discovery State Hospital Strawberry Square Cameron Street (Harrisburg Harrisburg Slavic Museum Jednota Home 11015 Rosedale Avenue Middletown

Also, various historical societies have or plan to have museum ,displaysopen to the public at their locations, including: The Dauphin 'County, Middletown, Hummelstown, Highspire, Halifax, Gratz and Upper Paxton Historical Societies.

SOURCE: Dauphin County Historical Society telephone interview, 1989

'MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS The following table lists the mailing address for each municipal building in Dauphin County. The actual location of each municipal 'building is shown on Maps 9-12 and 9-13.

9-16 I I TABLE 9-8 DAUPHIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS (Mailing Addresses) 1. Berrysburg Borough 13. Jackson Township 25. Penbrook Borough First and Hickory Streets Bastian Road 150 South 28th Street Berrysburg 17005 Halifax 17032 Harrisburg 17103 2. Conewago Township 14. Jefferson Township 26. Pillow Borough 3219 Old Hershey Road R.D. C2, Box 445 P.O. Box 51 Elizabethtown 17022 Halifax 17032 Pillow 17080 3. Dauphin Borough 15. Londonderry Township 27. Reed Township Church and Allegheny Streets 703 S. Geyer's Church Road R.D. C2, Box 61A Dauphin 17018 Middletown 17057 Halifax 17032 4. Derry Township 16. Lower Paxton Township 28. Royalton Borough 235 Hocklersville Road 75 South Houcks Road Burd and Dock Streets Hershey 17033 Harrisburg 17109 Royalton 17057 5. East Hanover Township 17. Lower Swatara Township 29. Rush Township R.D. C2, Box 4323 1499 Spring Garden Drive R.D. #1 Grantville 17028 Middletown 17057 Tower City 17980 6. Elizabethville Borough 18. Lykens Borough 30. South Hanover Township 466 West Main Street 559 South Second Street 111 W 3rd St, Union Dep. Elizabethville 17023 Lykens, 17048 Hershey 17033 7. Gratz Borough 19. Lykens Township 31. Steelton Borough 420 East Market Street R.D. 91, Box 414 123 North Front Street Gratz 17030 Lykens 17048 Steelton 17113 8. Halifax Borough 20. Middle Paxton Township 32. Susquehanna Township Second and Armstrong Streets 1304 Overlook Street 1900 Linglestown Road Halifax 17032 Dauphin 17018 Harrisburg 17112 9. Halifax Township 21. Middletown Borough 33. Swatara Township P.O. Box 405 60 West Emaus Street 599 Eisenhower Blvd. Halifax 17032 Middletown 17057 Harrisburg 17111

10. Harrisburg City 22 * Mifflin Township 34. Upper Paxton Township 10 North Market Square R.D. (2, Box 109 506 Berrysburg Road Harrisburg 17101 Millersburg 17061 Millersburg 17061 11. Highspire Borough 23. Millersburg Borough 35. Washington Township 640 Eshelman Street Market Square P.O. Box 131 Highspire 17034 Millersburg 17061 Elizabethville 17023 12. Hummelstown Borough 24. Paxtang Borough 3 6. Wayne Township 136 South Hanover Street Derry and Elm Streets R.D. t2, Box 486 Hummelstown 17036 Harrisburg 17111 Halifax 17032 37. W. Hanover Township 38. Wiconisco Township 39. Williams Township 7171 Allentown Blvd. 313 Pottsville Street 706 W. Market Street Harrisburg 17112 Wiconisco 17097 Williamstown 17098 40. Williamstown Borough 115 W. Market Street P.O. Box 44 Williamstown 17098

HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES Four hospitals are located in Dauphin County. Two of the four are located in Harrisburg: Harrisburg Hospital, and the Polyclinic Medical Center. The third hospital is the Community General Oseopathic Hospital located in Lower Paxton Township. The fourth hospital in the County is located at the M. S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Derry Township. Table 9-9 provides descriptive information regarding types of facilities and services available and number of beds provided for each hospital. In addition to these hospitals, County residents have access to a number of excellent facilities located in neighboring counties. These

9-17 facilities are also listed in Table 9-9. In addition to hospitals, Dauphin County has thirteen (13) licensed nursing homes. Table 9-10 lists these facilities, type of ownership, number of licensed/approved beds, and medicaid/medicare certification. Seven (7) of the nursing homes are non-profit facilities. These nursing homes provide a total of approximately 937 skilled nursing beds and 1,087 intermediate care beds.

~~~~~~ ~ ~~ TABLE 9-9 EXISTING HOSPITALS 1989 Dauphin County Name of Hospital Add re ss Type of Facilitv/Services Bed Total Community General 4300 London- Medical, surgical, CCU, oncology, orthopedic, 157 Osteopathic derry Road telemetry, 24-hour emergency, laboratory, Hospi ta1 Harrisburg physical therapy, respiratory therapy, free- standing diagnostic center, out-patient surgery center, cancer-treatment center

Harrisburg S. Front St. General/surgery, neonatal, surgical pediatric, 471 Hospital Harrisburg obstetrics, psychiatric, special care, short (Subsidiary of procedure center, trauma center Capital Health System) M.S. Hershey 500 University Penn State's College of Medicine and Univer- 331 Medical Center Drive sity Hospital. General surgery, family and Hershey community medicine, cardiology, obstetrics, gynecological, pediatric, psychiatry and psychiatric research, aeromedical emergency services, trauma center, Elizabethville Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, South- Central Lithotripter Alliance, Capital Area Poison Control Center Polyclinic 3rd St. and General/surgery, neonatal, obstetrics, . 500 Medical Center Polyclinic Ave. gynecological, pediatric, cardiac, intensive care, psychiatric care, diabetes center, geriatric/nursing home, adult day health center, Industrial medical program, Harrisburg Pain Treatment Center (Upper Allen Township), Willow Mill Health Center (Silver Spring Township) Cumberland County Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker St. General/surgery, obstetrics, gynecological, I 231 Carlisle pediatric, psychiatric hospice, neurophysiology, special care. Holy Spirit N. 21st Street General/surgery, neonatal, obstetrics, 345 Camp Hill gynecological, pediatric, psychiatric, special care, orthopedics, opthomology advanced life support Rehab Hospital 175 Lancaster Head injury, chronic pain, orthopedics, 103 in Mechanicsburg Boulevard neurologic, psychiatric, physical therapy, Mechanicsburg occupational therapy and vocational rehabilitation Seidle Memorial Simpson and Outpatient care, physical therapy, emergency 56 Hospital Fibert Streets services, radiology, laboratory, skilled Mechanicsburg nursing care, geriatrics Name of Hospital Address Type of Facility/Services Bed Total, Lebanon County

Good Samaritan Fourth 6 Walnut General/surgery, obstetrics, pediatrics, 213 Hospital Sts, Lebanon 24 hour emergency, laboratory and radiology, physical therapy, respiratory therapy, dialysis, out-patient surgery, cancer care center.

Hyman S. Caplan Willow & Fourth Pavilion Sts, Lebanon (satellite of Good Samaritan, formerly Lebanon Valley Hospital)

9-18 Also, the University Hospital Rehab Center in Elizabethtown, Western Lancaster County, offers rehabilitation services in its 55 bed facility. Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Telephone Survey, April 1988, October 1989. TABLE 9-10 LICENSED NURSING HOMES - DAUPHIN COUNTY NAME OF FACILITY ADDRESS TYPE OF LICENSED/APPROVED BEDS MEDICAID MEDICARE OWNERSHIP SKILLED INTERMEDIATE CERTIFIED CERTIFlED NURSING CARE Alpine Nursing and P. 0. Box 371 Profit 82 125 Yes Yes Convalescent Home Her shey Blue Ridge Haven- 3625 N. Progress Profit 38 29 Yes Yes East Harrisburg Dauphin Manor 1205 S. 28th St. City/County 48 376 Yes Yes Harrisburg Frey Village 1020 N. Union St. Non-Profit 25 111 Yes Yes Middletown Homeland Center 1901 N. Fifth St. Non-Profit 60 0 Yes Yes Harrisburg Jewish Home of 4000 Linglestown Non-Profit 120 0 No Yes Greater Harrisburg Road Harrisburg

Kepler Home, Inc. 44 S. Market St. Profit 0 36 Yes No Elizabethville Leader Nursing Home 800 Kind Russ Rd. Profit 52 188 Yes Yes and Rehabilitation Harrisburg Center - Lower Paxton Odd Fellows Home of 999 W. Hbg Pike Non-Profit 25 I7 Yes Yes Pennsylvania Middletown Polyclinic Medical 2601 N. 3rd St. Non-Profit 80 0 Yes Yes Center Extended Care Harrisburg Facility Susquehanna Center 1909 N. Front St. Profit 180 0 Yes Yes for Nursing and Rehab. Harrisburg Susquehanna Lutheran 990 Medical Road Non-profit 43 145 Yes Yes Village Mi 1lersburg Villa Teresa 1051 Avila Road Non-Profit 184 0 Yes Yes Harrisburg I SOURCE : Pennsylvania Department of Health, State Health Data Center, Nursinq Home Directory, 1988.

OPEN SPACE AND PARK/RECREATION FACILITIES Planning for the future provision of open space and park/recreation facilities is important in attempting to achieve the goals of providing and maintaining a quality living environment and satisfying people’s outdoor recreational needs. With the increasing development pressures in many parts of the County, the preservation of land for open space purposes (i.e., agricultural,

watershed, woodlands, steeply sloped and other environmentally ~ sensitive lands), as well as for passive/active recreational facilities, is becoming a greater public concern. This section of the community facilities chapter will examine some of the natural and recreational resources of Dauphin County, including national and state designated natural areas and landmarks, as well as municipal and school district park and recreation facilities. This listing is not meant to be a i 9-19 comprehensive inventory of all natural areas/recreational facilities in the County, but rather a highlighting of several of these.

I (State Game Lands and Forest Lands and National Landmarks? Municipal Parks/Recreational Facilities are shown on Map 9-14). UNIQUE NATURAL FEATURES There are several unique geological, botanical and ecological areas located within Dauphin County. The Dauphin County Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (1974) contains a complete listing of these sites in the County, which is included here as Table 9-11.

TABLE 9-11 UNIQUE NATURAL FEATURES A classification system has been devised to categorize unique natural features. The classification and explanation of these categories are as follows: 1. Geolosical - Rock struts, cliffs, fossils and rock outcroppings of a unique character which afford opportunity for paleontological study and scenic interest. 2. Botanical - Plant life of a unique character not generally indigenous to the area of interest for botanical study and visual value. More specifically, critical animal habitats, virgin timberlands and specimen vegetation unscathed by development. 3. Ecoloqical - Floodplains, watersheds, slope land and general forest . lands necessary for enhancing the environment and the preservation of open space. Areas and watercourses which influence the structure and quality of development and provide general conservation and open space opportunities. Such areas maintained in a predominately open space state with a minimum of intensive development are of immense value in the development of an integrated open space system. Appropria-tely, these areas provide both competitive and complementary use for conservation and harmonious recreational activity. Geolosical Sites Devils Race Course Unique to Dauphin County, this glacial boulder field is not generally viewed by geologists as comparable to those found in Monroe and Berks Counties. However, it is of interest to the general public and offers visual amenities.

9-20 1

Rockville Fossil Well known by local geologists, the I Locality Rockville Fossil Locality contains fossils typical of Middle Devonian Age. Consisting of several quarries, the Locality has rock exposures estimated to I be in excess of 300 million years of age. While some fossils may be found in all of the quarries, the northern quarry is of 1 most value to collectors. Susquehanna Water Gap Recognized as a significant natural I landmark, the area of five water gaps along the Susquehanna River, north of Harrisburg, presents a magnificent view. The gaps accent the history of geological 1 events which produced the existing water gaps - 1 Manada Gap Formed during the glacial period, Manada Gap provides a picturesque division of the Blue Mountain Chain. The gap serves as a classical exhibit of mountain fold I development and long periods of erosion, affecting various rock formations and I ridges. Indian Echo Caverns Indian Echo has long been recognized as an outstanding example of cave develop- I ment with many unique features. Stalag- tites and stalagmites are found in abundance along with coating on the cavern walls, and lows" over I irregularities such as broken pieces of rock. I Annville High-Calci Im High calcium limestone such as that Limestone Locality found at this site is indeed considered very rare in the United States. Limestone of this quality is in demand I for steel production and, fortunately, this site has been retained in reserve I under private ownership. Highspire Gravel Pits Originally mined for gravel and sand, these pits contain exposed glacial I gravels. Rocks found within the pits have been matched with those of the "Canadian Shield" and typify rock move- I ment during various glacial periods. Botanical Sites 1 Enterline Swamp Representative of bog in its late transitional stage, the site is popular with local botanists with its many plants I 9-21 1 I

typical of bog flora which have remained in a virtual virgin state. I Ecoloqical Sites Watershed, flood plains, steep slopes and other notable ecological areas are numerous and diverse. B SOURCE: Dauphin County Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan - Detailed Inventory (19741, p.. 18-20. I 1 NATIONAL AND STATE NATURAL AREAS AND LANDMARKS The Susquehanna Water Gap I Located where the Susquehanna River meets Blue Mountain, Peters Mountain, Buffalo Mountain and Berry Mountain, the Susquehanna Water Gap has been designated a National Natural I Landmark. Fishing and boating are the primary uses along the river, which remains quite scenic all year long. Harrisburq River Front Bicycle Trail I A National Recreation Trail and part of the National Trails System, this trail is a four mile long bike and foot path along the I Susquehanna River. It is operated by the City of Harrisburg and was designated a National Recreation Trail in 1977. I ' The Appalachian Trail The Appalachian Trail is the longest continuous marked trail , in the world, and runs from Maine to Georgia for a total length of I , approximately 2,000 miles. The Trail is characterized by forested and primitive areas and is meant to be traveled only by foot, with unexcelled hiking areas. Twenty-five miles of the Appalachian I Trail traverse Dauphin County, including a section through the State Forest. Map 9-14 shows the location of the Appalachian Trail Horse-Shoe Trail I Designated a National Scenic Trail, the 130 mile long Horse- Shoe Trail was founded in 1935 and is maintained as a free public I trail for hikers, horseback riders, climbers and nature lovers. The Trail begins in Valley Forge National Historic Park and continues across five counties to a junction with the Appalachian 1 Trail on the Stoney Mountain north of Harrisburg. Increased development pressure has caused relocation of portions of the Horse-Shoe Trail. Map 9-15 shows the location of the Horse-Shoe Trail from start to finish. I State Game Lands B A total of 46,052 acres comprise the State Game Lands in Dauphin County. Two extensive areas have been designated as State

9-22 I I I

Game Lands in Dauphin County. The largest areas, Game Lands #210 I and #211 are located in Jefferson and Jackson Townships in Dauphin County (NOTE: some of Game Land #211 is also located in Lebanon and Schuylkill Counties). Other locations of State Game Lands in Dauphin County include Middle Paxton, Rush, Wiconisco, and Williams I Townships. Under Project 70 the Game Commission has acquired . islands in the Susquehanna River as game lands in Dauphin County. Some of these islands are open to the public and some are reserved I as propagation areas.

State Game Lands are open to the public, primarily for the I purpose of hunting (lands are purchased using hunting license fees), but also allow other types of recreation such as fishing, hiking, bird watching and skiing.

I The following is a Table of State Game Lands located entirely or partially within Dauphin County: 1 TABLE 9-12 I STATE GAME LANDS Game Land I Number Town Game Harvested 210 Lykens deer, grouse, turkey 211 Manada Gap/ I Green Point deer, grouse, turkey 246 Middletown deer, grouse 254 Halifax New Buffalo waterfowl, deer, rabbit I 258 Paxton/ waterfowl, rabbit, quail, Liverpoo1 grouse, deer 264 South of Gratz deer, grouse, turkey, I rabbit 275 Highspire waterfowl 290 Haldeman Island deer, pheasant, rabbit Game Commission Headquarters I Harrisburg (18 acres) ------

SOURCE: Pennsylvania State Game Commission; Pennsylvania Atlas I and Gazetteer, 1987. I State Forest Land

A total of 8,029 acres are devoted to State Forest Land in 1 Dauphin County. This land is located within the Weiser State Forest (State Forest District #18), which extends into sections of Dauphin, Schuylkill, Carbon and Berks Counties. The two areas of I the Weiser State Forest within Dauphin County are referred to as the Haldeman and Greenland tracts. All State Forest lands are open to the public for hunting, fishing and general recreation. I 9-23 I I

The following table lists acreage of State Forest Land by ' Township in Dauphin County. I TABLE 9-13 STATE FOREST LAND - DAUPHIN COUNTY 1 Town ship Acres of State Forest Land Jackson 6,738 Jefferson 973 I Rush 197 Williams 93 Susquehanna 25 I Halifax 1 Middle Paxton 1 I

State Forest Picnic Areas I Two State Forest picnic areas are located in Dauphin County. Minnichs Spring (4 acres) and Rowland (3 acres) picnic areas are both located within the Haldman tract. 1 State Parks I There are no State Parks located within Dauphin County. Pennsylvania Fish Commission: I , - Public Fishins Areas The Pennsylvania Fish Commission lists two official I public fishing areas within Dauphin County: The Middletown Reservoir, owned/controlled by the Game Commission, and Wildwood Park, owned by Dauphin County. I - Fishins Access Areas I The Pennsylvania Fish Commission now has five access areas in Dauphin County. The Fort Hunter Access Area is located north of Harrisburg at the mouth of Fishing Creek. Another access area is in Middletown, located by I the Swatara Creek. City Island in the Susquehanna River has an access area, owned by the City of Harrisburg. There are two other local access areas along the 1 Susquehanna River, located at Millersburg and Halifax Landing. - Fly Fishins Areas 1 There is one fly fishing area in Dauphin County, located at Clarks Creek. I See Table 9-14 for a summary of all Pennsylvania Fish I 9-24 I I

Commission fishing areas and other facilities provided at I these sites. I COUNTY AND LOCAL PARKS/RECREATION Countv Parks The County’s Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space 1 Plan (1974) called for acquisition by the County of six sites for regional-type parks: Wiconisco Creek Regional Park, located along Wiconisco Creek; Rattling Run Conservation Area, along Rattling I Run Creek; Stream Valley Park, along Asylum Run; Wildwood Park, along Paxton Creek; Beaver Creek Regional Park, along Beaver Creek; and Blue Mountain Regional Park, along Manada Creek or at the base I of Blue Mountain.

1 TABLE 9-14 DAUPHIN COUNTY FISHING AREAS - PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION I PUBLIC FISHING AREAS Name of Nearest Water Warm Cold Water Town Acreaqe Water Water Boatinq Species Present Middletown Middletown 11 Yes Yes Non-Powered Bass, Panfish, I Reservoir Boats Only Trout Wildwood Lake Harrisburg 135 Yes no Non-Powered Bass, Panfish, Boats Only Pickerel I PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS Name of Warm Cold Launch Overnight Area River Water Water Boatinq Ramp Moorinq Millersburg Susquehanna River Yes No Unlimited Yes Yes Horsepower I Halifax Landing Susquehanna River Yes No Unlimited Yes No Horsepower City Island Susquehanna River Yes No Unlimited Yes No Horsepower Fort Hunter Susquehanna River Yes No Unlimited Yes No I Horsepower Middletown Susquehanna River Yes No Unlimited Yes - no Horsepower FLY FISHING AREAS I Location Of Stream Name Mileaqe Fly Fishinq Area Clarks Creek 2 miles S.R. 0325 downstream to Pennsylvania Game Commission access road at the Iron Furnace. I SOURCE : Pennsylvania Fish Commission, 1989

I Areas which include two of these six sites have been acquired by the County: Wildwood Lake and Nature Center and the Wiconisco Creek County Park. A third County Park has also been created: Fort Hunter Park, which includes the historically significant Fort I Hunter site. This site was mentioned in the 1974 plan as an area which could provide multiple use benefits (i.e., historic and recreational) and should therefore be considered for acquisition by I the County. The remaining sites have either not been pursued, or the land

I 9-25 I I

is no lonqer available. Howe er, the Co nty is continually searching for suitable properties to purchase and is currently I negotiating acquisition with property owners throughout the County. LOCAL PARK AND RECREATION AREAS I Municipal Aside from the abundant natural areas within Dauphin County I , there are also a variety of municipally-owned parks, picnic areas, swimming pools and play areas. In many instances the only existing facility is the municipal park. It may consist of extensive acres which are intensively developed or may be small in size with I limited development. Table 9-15 lists local recreation facilities by municiality. I Twenty-five (25) of the forty (40) municipalities in the County have municipal recreation facilities. Harrisburg City owns the most recreation land in the County with 400 acres, as well as the I greatest number of municipal parks (twenty-four). Swatara Township ranks second with ten municipal parks. The fifteen municipalities which do not have municipal recreation facilities are mostly located in the middle and upper rural areas of the County. Some of I these municipalities have substantial acreage in State Game or State Forest Land, however. I (Municipal parks are mapped on Map 9-14). Other public/semi-public and private recreation facilities , include recreation areas associated with schools, churches and I other institutions, private health clubs, country clubs and golf courses. These facilities are not inventoried in this Chapter. I I I I I I m

9-26 I I I

TABLE 9-15 EXISTING MUNICIPAL RECREATION FACILIITES I DAUPHIN COUNTY MUNICIPALITY NAME FACILITIES #ACRES Berrysburg Borough Borough Park Playground, picnic area, baseball, basketball, 1.0 I tennis Conewago Township Danny Fisher Tether ball, passive recreation area 1.5 Memorial Field I Dauphin Borough ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Derry Township Shank Park Picnic area, playground, sledding, cross county 90.0 skiing, nature trail, softball, baseball, soccer Boathouse Rd Park Picnic tables, fishing, boat launch, softball 5.0 Brookside Park Playground, softball, soccer 1.2 I Bullfrog Valley Picnic tables, fishing 3.0 Pond Park Palmdale Park Playground, picnic tables, sledding, cross county 15.0 skiing, soccer Cocoa Avenue Playground, picnic tables, softball, tennis 14.0 m Plaza East Hanover Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Elizabethville Boro. Borough Memorial Playground, baseball field, Little League field, 7.0 i Park hiking, picnic area, swimming pool, tennis Gratz Borough Borough Park Field games 1.5 Halifax Borough Borough Park Playground, field games, swimming pool, scenic 30.0 area, picnic area I Armstrong Creek Picnic area 1.0 Halifax Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Harrisburg City Cit Parks I McCormick' s Islbenicareas, wildlife propagation 100.0 City Island Picnic area, beach, boating, fishing, hike/ 66.0 bike, scenic areas, playground, multiple use sports facilities, entertainment attractions, concessions, shops I Reservoir Park Basketball, tennis, picnic area, scenic area 88.0 Italian Lake Fishing, ice skating, scenic areas 9.5 Riverfront Park Hike/bike, fitness course, jogging path N/A Cameron Parkway Bikeway N/A I City Community/Neiqhborhood Parks Paxtang Park - Playground N/A S. of Derry St. Paxtang Park - Playground N/A N. of Derry St. I 7th and Radnor Playground, ballfield, basketball N/A Sunshine Park Playground, ballfield, basketball, tennis N /A Royal Terrace/ Playground N/A Summit Gorgas Playground N/A I Emerald Playground, basketball N/A Cloverly Heights Playground, basketball N/A 16th 6 Putnam Playground N/A 4th & Dauphin Playground, basketball N/A Wilson Park Playground N/A I Vernon Playground N/A Braxton Playground N /A Norwood Playground N/A 19th 6 Forster Playground N/A Penn 6 Sayford Playground, half basketball court N /A I Shipoke Playground N/A TOTAL ACREAGE 400 acres Note: The City also has special facilities: Two swimming pools and the Riverfront Bicycle Trail. In I addition, the Harrisburg Housing Authority owns playgrounds at the four public housing facilities. Highspire Borough Borough Park Playground, baseball, basketball, tennis, 1.5 picnic area Canal Area Playground, basketball, volleyball, picnic area 35.0 , I Municipal Bldg. Playground, basketball 0.3 Reservoir Park Playground, archery, picnic area N /A Hummelstown Borough Borough Park Playground, baseball, volleyball, picnic area, 4.0 I civic center I 9-27 I

TABLE 9-15 (continued) MUNICIPALITY NAME FACILITIES #ACRES Shope Field Baseball, football _. West End Baseball 2 .0 Dock Street Boating 10.16 Jackson Township No municipal recreation facilities --- Jefferson Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Londonder ry Township Sunset Recreation Playground, baseball, basketball, picnic area, 100. 0 Area station fitness trail Sunset.Go1 f Golf, scenic areas, fishing 112.0 Course Col. Stinson Park Playground, ballfield, tennis, picnic area 10.0 (Braeburn) Lower Paxton Township Brightbill Park Playground, tennis, soccer, fitness course. 2'1.0 volleyball, basketball, picnic area Kohl Park Playground, softball, baseball, tennis, 1.3.0 racquetball, soccer, game area, picnic area, concessions Hocker Park Tent camp site, picnic area, nature trail, 12.0 bike trail Hodges Heights Playground, softball, basketball, tennis 60.0 George's Memorial Tent camp area, picnic area 10.0

Lower Paxton Township Koons Memorial Playground, tennis, basketball, volleyball, 24.0 (Continued) baseball, football, picnic area, concessions Feeser Tract Nature trail '7 .0 Lower Swatara Township Shope Gardens Playground, softball, baseball, tennis, 2.0 basketball, picnic area Green Plains Playground 2.0 Market St. Ext'n Playground 2.5 Little Hollywood Playground, baseball, picnic area 16.1 (Lower Swatara Recreation Site) Lykens Borough Borough Park Basketball, tennis, swimming pool ,, Glen Park Baseball, picnic area Softball field Total Acres 90-100 Lykens Township No municipal recreation facilities Middle Paxton Twp ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Middlet own Borough Hoffer Park Playground, field games, pavilion, picnic area, 12.5 basketball, tennis Met Ed Ballfield Field games :I .5 I Oak Hills Park Playground, field games 6.0 Municipal Pool Swimming pool N/A Frey Manor Field games, 4.0 Colston Park Playground 1V /A Emaus St. Park Playground N/A I Mifflin Township No municipal recreation facilities --- Miilersburg Borough Myo Park Playground, baseball field with concessions, soccer, pavilions Riverfront Park Playground, picnic area, scenic area, boat docks Market Square Prk Scenic area, park benches, gazebo :1 .0 Brown Bradenbaugh Softball :1.25 Park Seal Park Playground, baseball field with concessions, 9.1 pavilions, picnic area, volleyball, tennis I Paxtang Borough Paxtang and Playground, baseball, basketball, field house, Simpson Streets picnic area Penbrook Borough No municipal recreation facilities Pillow Borough Field games, picnic area Reed Township No municipal recreation facilities Royalton Borough No municipal recreation facilities

9-28 TABLE 9-15 (continued) MUNICIPALITY NAME FACILITIES #ACRES Rush Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- South Hanover Twp. Swatara Park Baseball, picnic area, scenic area 25.1 Greenbriar Park Basketball, baseball 2.3 Steelton Borough Steelton Playground, tennis, basketball, picnic area N/A Municipal Park Poplar Street Playground, basketball N/A Bailey Street Playground, basketball N/A Mohn Street Tennis N/A Susquehanna Township 39th Street Playground, shuffleboard, horseshoes, volleyball, 0.63 basketball, passive recreation area, picnic area Miller Property- Playground, basketball, volleyball, tether ball, 10.0 Locust Lane shuffleboard, tennis, midget baseball, passive Park recreation area, picnic area, scenic area Pulte Playground, basketball 5.0 Herbert Hoover (Vacant) 7.5 School-Deer Path Woods (part of development) Beaufort Manor (Vacant) 2.8 (part of development) Swatara Township Chambers Hill Playground, teener baseball, basketball, tennis, 10.4 shelter Earl R. Long Playground, teener baseball, football, basketball, 4.4 Memo ri a1 shuffleboard, shelter Rutherford 2 Playground, softball, tennis, basketball, 3.0 walk-way, shelter Gerald H. Vanatta Playground, teener baseball and midget baseball, 8.3 tennis, soccer-football, basketball, horseshoes, walk-way, shelter Donald M. Taylor Playground, basketball, tennis, midget baseball, 4.7 Memorial volleyball, horseshoes, shelter, concessions Lenker Manor 2 Playground, shuffleboard, volleyball, horseshoes 0.7 Bressler Playground, basketball, volleyball, shuffleboard 0.5 game room, recreation building Enhaut Playground, midget baseball, tennis, volleyball, 6.3 basketball, concessions Robert W. Horner Playground, midget baseball, basketball, 1.6 Memo ri a1 volleyball Frank J. Kocevar Scenic areas, walk-way, horseshoes 2.0 Upper Paxton Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- Washington Township Loyalton Ballfield Playground, ballfield 11.0 Wayne Township ------No municipal recreation facilities --- West Hanover Township Manor Drive Park Field games, tennis 3.0

Wi.conisco Township Mountain St. Park Playground, picnic area N/A Walnut St. Park Playground, basketball L. and W. Baseball, football 6.0 I Athletic Park Williams Township -_____ No municipal recreation facilities --- Williamstown Borough Borough Park Playground, picnic area, swimming pool, basketball, 10.0 I shelter

I Pubic Schools

A major source of recreation, especially for children, is found at the school sites. Most outdoor school facilities within the populated areas are available for public use, and these are often maintained by trained instructors. Many schools have several areas of level land which is suitable for field sports played by I young and old alike. I 9-29 I

Table 9-16 lists recreation facilities by school district and by school site, as reported by the districts in the Tri-County I Regional Planning Commission's 1989 Educational Facilities Survey. Developed recreational facilities include various athletic fields and play grounds. The most diverse recreation facilities are found at the secondary level, while the elementary schools commonly have I ' only playgrounds or playgrounds with ballfields. In many cases, special arrangements must be made with school officials for the general public or groups to use certain school district recreation I facilities; in particular, indoor facilities.

' Leisure Activitv Facilities I

' The following list highlights some of the major leisure activity facilities located in Dauphin County. I , Pennsylvania Farm Show The Pennsylvania Farm Show is a public facility located within I the City of Harrisburg on an approximately 14 acre site with 60 acres available for parking. The Farm Show complex is owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is the annual site for such varied attractions as auto, sports, and trade shows, athletic I events, Home Builders' and antique shows, concerts, livestock shows and sales, and the complex's namesake, "The Pennsylvania Farm Show", first held in 1917. The Farm Show complex provides I substantial leisure time opportunities to people all over the State, farmers as well as non-farmers alike. I I I I I I I I I 9-30 I I TABLE 9-16 PUBLIC SCHOOL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES District School Facilities Acreaqe E Central Dauphin Central Dauphin H. S. Two (2) football fields, two (2) b aseball 30.5 fields, six (6) tennis courts, three (3) soccer fields C.D. East Senior H.S. One (1) football field, four (4) baseball 38.8 fields, six (6) tennis court's, one (1) soccer field C.D. East Junior H.S. One (1) football field, three (3) baseball 56.3 fields, one (1) soccer field Lawton Elem. School Two (2) baseball fields, one (1) soccer field, two (2) playgrounds Linglestown Junior H.S. Two (2) football fields, one (1) baseball 21.9 field, two (2) soccer fields Swatara Junior H.S. One (1) football field, one (1) baseball 10.8 field, one (1) soccer field Chamber Hill Elem. School Two (2) playgrounds 8.2 Fishing Creek Elem. School One (1) baseball field, one (1) basketball 19.0 court, one (1) soccer field and one (1) playground Linglestown Elem. School One (1) baseball field, two (2) playgrounds 11.5 Middle Paxton Elem. School Two (2) baseball fields, one (1) playground 14.0 Mountain View Elem. School One (1) baseball field, one (1) playground 3.3 North Side Elem. School Two (2) baseball fields, one (1) soccer 10.9 field and two (2) playgrounds Paxtang Elementary School One (1) basketball court, one (1) playground 0.04 Paxtonia Elem. School Four (4) baseball fields, two (2) playgrounds 22.6 Phillips Elem. School Four (4) baseball fields, one (1) basketball 11.7 court, one (1) soccer field, two (2) playgrounds Rutherford Elem. School Three (3) baseball fields, three (3) playgrounds 2.9 South Side Elem. School Three (3) baseball fields, one (1) playground 9.3 Tri-Community Elem. School One (1) baseball field, two (2) basketball 8.8 courts, two (2) playgrounds W. Hanover Elem. School Two (2) playgrounds 7.0 Derry Township M.S. Hershey Sr. H.S. Soccer, baseball, tennis, track N /A M.S. Hershey Middle School Playground N /A M.S. Hershey Primary Elem. Playground NfA School Harrisburg City Harrisburq Hiqh School: John Harris Campus Baseball fields, softball fields, tennis 10.0 courts, football field William Penn Campus Tennis courts, football field 3.5 Harrisburq Middle Schools Softball fields, tennis court, football field 10.0 a. John Scott Intermediate b. James Rowland Intermediate Riverside School of the Arts Playground 1.0 Steele Elementary School Playground 1.0 Hamilton Elem. School Playground 1.0 Ben Franklin Elem. School Playground 1.0 Woodward Elem. School Playground, basketball courts 0.5 Marshall Elem. School Playground, baseball field 2.0 Melrose Elementary School Playground, basketball court 2.0 Harrisburg cont'd Camp Curtin ECC Playground, baseball field 3.0 (Early Childhood Center) Downey ECC Playground 1.0 Lincoln ECC Playground 1.0 Shimmel ECC Playground, basketball court 1.0 Foose ECC Playground 1.0 Halifax Area Halifax Area Middle/ Football field, baseball fields, basketball N/A Sr. H.S. courts, two (2) tennis courts Enders-Fishervilleand Playgrounds NfA Halifax Area Elem. Schools Lower Dauphin Lower Dauphin High School Field hockey, baseball, tennis courts 25.0 Conewago Elementary School Community baseball and general playground 6.0 E. Hanover Elem. School Community baseball and general playground 7.0 Annie B. Nye Elem. School Community baseball and general playground 4.0 Londonderry Elem. School Community baseball and general playground 9.0 South Hanover Elem. School Community baseball and general playground 8.0 Middletown Area Middletown Area High School Four (4) lighted tennis courts, two (2) 32.0 softball fields, one (1) baseball field, one (1) soccer field, one (1) field hockey field, one (1) 8-lane all weather track, one (1) one mile fitness course, four (4) volleyball court, two (2) ball walls, four

9-31 TABLE 9-16 (Cont'dl PUBLIC SCHOOL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES District School Facilities Acreage Middletown (cont'd) (4) half court basketball courts, two (2) all purpose fields, one (1) play area, picnic and park benches Feaser M.S./Fink E.S. One (1) football stadium, one (1) basketball 9.9 court, one (1) soccer field, one (1) baseball/ I softball field, one (1) cinder track, one (1) fitness court, one (1) all purpose play area, one (1) playground Kunkel Elementary School Two (2) basketball courts, one (1) fitness 14.9 court, one (1) volleyball court, one (1) 1 soccer field, one (1) baseball/softball field, one (1) playground Mansberger Elem. School One (1) basketball court, one (1) playground 2! .2 Millersburg Area Millersburg Area Middle One (1) practice football field, one (1) 7.0 E School and High School athletic field, one (1) softball field, one (1) basketball court, two (2) tennis courts Lenkerville Elem. School One (1) softball field, one (1) basketball 4 .0 court, one (1) playground Steelton-Highspire Steelton-Highspire Sr./ One (1) football practice field and one (1) 5 .0 I Jr. High School gamefield, one (1) 400 m. track, one (1) basketball court, one (1) baseball field and one (1) softball field Steelton-Highspire Elem. One (1) playground School .75 f

Susquehanna Twp. Susquehanna Township One (1) football field, two (2) softball N /A

High School fields (includes soccer play)~~ one (1) tennis facility I Susquehanna Township One (1) football field, one (1) baseball Middle School field, two (2) softball fields (includes soccer play), one (1) tennis facility, two (2) basketball play areas Herbert Hoover Elem. Sch. One (1) softball field, one (1) basketball N /A 1 play area Sara Lindemuth Elem. Sch. One (1) basketball play area Upper Dauphin Area Upper Dauphin Area H.S. One (1) football field, one (I) soccer field, two (2) basketball backstops, two (2) softball fields, two (2) tennis courts Upper Dauphin Area One (1) playground Middle School Berrysburg Elem. School One (1) playground Gratz Elementary School One (1) playground Lykens Elementary School One (1) playground N/A N/A: Information not available SOURCE : Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "Dauphin County Educational Facilities Questionna.ire," 1989. I City Island The leisure activity development on City Island, located in the Susquehanna River and owned by the City of Harrisburg, has led to its being termed "the fast growing recreational hub of the region". City Island offers a wide variety of entertainment events and recreation facilities, including a multipurpose sports complex, river excursions,miniature train, horse drawn rides, shuffleboard, jogging, swimming, boating, rowing, food and beverage concessions, art exhibits, historic displays and concerts, plus a very scenic view. of the City Skyline. City Island also participates in numerous special events including the July 4th and Labor Day (Kipona) weekend festivals. Penn National Race Course In 1989, Penn National hosted 200 days of thoroughbred horse racing competition. Also available at the Race Course are closed

9-32 circuit and satellite television broadcasts of other horse races at Pennsylvania tracks, an annual handicapping competition, and viewing of world championship boxing matches. The Penn National Race Course is located off of Exit 28 of Interstate 81 at Grantville. Hershey Complex Hershey, located in Derry Township, Dauphin County, is known worldwide as the home of the famous Hershey Chocolate Bar. The largest private leisure activity center in the region is the complex located at Hershey, operated by the Hershey Entertainment and Resort Company (HERCO). The Hershey facilities include: Hersheypark (one of America’s top theme parks), The Chocolate World Visitors Center (official Hershey Foods visitors center), Hersheypark Arena and Stadium (sporting and entertainment events), Zoo America North American Wildlife Park, The hotel Hershey, the Hershey Country Club, the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey High Meadow Camp (outdoor camping), Hershey Gardens, Hershey Theater, and Hershey Museum of American Life. The Hershey attractions offer a variety of family fun throughout the year. EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection, fire and emergency medical services (EMS) are provided by many local municipalities. Maps 9-12 and 9-13 shows the location of the police departments, fire departments/ companies, and EMS companies within Dauphin County. Fire Service According to .the Dauphin County Office of Emergency Preparedness, all municipalities are provided fire service either by municipal departments or through mutual agreements with neighboring communities. There are a total of 41 local fire departments/companies in Dauphin County, excluding the private facilities of the Harrisburg International Airport, Pennsylvania National Air Guard, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Three Mile Island. Map 9-16 shows the division of the County into five fire district zones. The fire departments/companies within each zone are listed in Table 9-17. Through mutual agreements, the County can also dispatch to eight fire companies outside the County: Company # 62 Dalmatia Northumberland County 63 Herndon Northumberland County 64 Hickory Corners Northumberland County 65 Klingerstown Schuylkill County 66 Sheridan Schuylkill County 67 Tower City Schuylkill County 68 Re inerton Schuylkill County 69 Duncannon Perry County

9-33 TABLE 9-17 DAUPHIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS/COMPANIES ZONE #1 COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS Station #1 6th and Muenich Streets Harrisburg Station #2 16th and State Streets Harrisburg Station #6 2nd and Paxton Streets Harrisburg Station #8 13th and Howard Streets Harrisburg ZONE #2 COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS 19 Carsonville Fire Co. Box 360D, RD #2 (Jefferson Twp.) Halifax 17032 20 Millersburg Fire Co. PO Box 68, Center St. Millersburg 17061 21 Reliance Hose Co. PO Box 239, Market St. Elizabethville 17023 216 Fisherville Vol. Fire PO Box 781, RD #4 Co. (Jackson Twp.) Halifax 17032 22 Liberty Hose Co. #2 South Street Lykens 17048 23 Wiconisco Fire Eng. Pottsville and Stone Sts. co. #1 Wiconisco 17097 24 Liberty Hose Co. #1 West Broad Street Williamstown 17098 25 Halifax and Community Box Q, 2nd & Armstrong Fire Company Halifax 17032 26 Berrysburg & Community West Market Street Fire Company Berrysburg 17005 27 Gratz Fire Company PO Box 8 Gratz 17030 28 Pillow Fire Co. #1 Market Street Pillow 17080 29 Powells Valley Vol. PO Box 106, RD #3 Fire Co. (Halifax Halifax 17032 Township) ZONE #3 COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS 30 Penbrook Fire Co. 134 S. 28th Street Penbrook 17103 31 Edgemont Fire Co. 1407 North 25th St. (Susquehanna Twp. ) Harrisburg 17109 32 Progress Fire Co. 3440 Maple Street (Susquehanna Twp. ) Harrisburg 17109 33 Colonial Park Fire Co. 4520 Jonestown Road (Lower Paxton Twp.) Harrisburg 17109 9-34 TABLE 9-17 (Cont'd) DAUPHIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS/COMPANIES

COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS 34 Paxtonia Fire Co. 125 S. Johnson Street (Lower Paxton Twp.) Harrisburg 17112

35 Linglestown Fire Co. 5901 Linglestown Road #I Linglestown 17112 (Lower Paxton Twp.)

36 West Hanover Twp. Fire 628 Walnut Avenue Company #1 Harrisburg 17112 (W. Hanover Twp.)

37 Rescue Fire Company 3701 N. 6th Street (Susquehanna Twp. ) Harrisburg 17110

38 Dauphin Fire Company Erie Street Dauphin 17018

39 Grantville Fire Co. PO Box 39 (E. Hanover Twp.) Grantville

ZONE #4 COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS

40 Paxtang Fire Dept. 3419 Derry Street (Paxtang Borough) Harrisburg 17111

41 Friendship Fire Co. #1 757 Main Street (Swatara Twp.) Harrisburg 17113

42 Enhaut Fire Company Highland Street (Swatara Twp. ) Steelton 17113

43 Oberlin Fire Company PO Box 651, 1201 Ober St. (Swatara Twp.) Steelton 17113

44 Lawton Fire Company 52 South 46th Street (Swatara Twp. ) Harrisburg 17111

45 Reliance Hose Company 6690 Derry Street (Swatara Twp.) Harrisburg 17111

456 Chambers Hill Fire Co. 6400 Chambers Hill Road (Swatara Twp.) Harrisburg 17111

46 Hummelstown Fire Co. 249 East Main Street Hummelstown 17036

47 Union Deposit Vol. 10 West Main Street Fire Company Hershey 17033 (S. Hanover Twp. ) 9-35 TABLE 9-17 (Cont'd) DAUPHIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENTS/COMPANIES ZONE #4 COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS 48 Hershey Fire Dept. 21 West Caracos Ave. (Derry Twp.) Hershey 17033 49 Oberlin Gardens Fire 1073 Third Avenue Co. (Swatara Twp.) Steelton 17113

ZONE #S COMPANY # NAME ADDRESS 50 Boro of Steelton Fire 123 N. Front Street Bureau (Citizens) Steelton 17113 54 Londonderry Fire Co. PO Box 324 #1 (Londonderry Twp. ) Middletown 17057 55 Citizens Fire Co. #1 PO Box 1 Highspire 17034 56 Middletown Station #1 51 E. Water Street Union Hose Co. Middletown 17057 57 Middletown Station #2 10 Adelia Street Liberty Steam Fire Middletown 17057 Company #1 58 Middletown Station #3 600 South Union Street Rescue Hose Co. #3 Middletown 17057 59 Lower Swatara Vol. 800 Oberlin Road Fire Company Middletown 17057 (Lower Swatara Twp.) 70 Harrisburg Inter. 45 Luke Drive Airport Fire Dept. Middletown 17057 71 PA. Air National Guard Harrisburg Inter. Airport 193rd Fire Dept. Middletown 17057 73 Bethlehem Steel Corp. Front and Swatara Sts. Steelton 17113 74 Three Mile Island Middletown 17057 SOURCE : Dauphin County Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1989

9-36 Police Protection Half of the County's municipalities (20 out of 40) have their own police department. A total of approximately 300 officers are employed by these municipal departments. Municipalities not having an individual department are provided services through the Pennsylvania State Police at the Harrisburg or Lykens Barracks. The State Police also serve those municipalities .with part-time police protection, when the part-time officers are off-duty. Table 9-18 lists the police departments. Emerqencv Medical Services County residents are provided ambulance and emergency medical services by six medic units (also called Advanced Life Support or ALS's, staffed and operated by medical professionals 24 hours a day), and twenty-four (24) ambulance companies, plus the Life Lion helicopter operated by the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. These emergency service providers serve the entire County either through direct municipal services or mutual agreements with adjacent communities. It is noted that Rush Township and a section of Middle Paxton Township cannot be reached within a 20 minute response time. Map 9-17 shows the Company's six EMS Zones, and Table 9-19 lists the medic units and ambulance companies corresponding to each zone. In addition to the ambulance companies listed in Table 9-19, private ambulances are maintained by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and the G.P.U. Nuclear Corporation. Dauphin Manor, the County Home, provides its own ambulance transport to its facility. The County can also dispatch to two ambulance companies outside the County: Dalmatia, in Northumberland County and Duncannon in Perry County. TABLE 9-18 DAUPHIN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTS Dauphin Boro Police Elizabethville Boro Police Hummelstown Boro Pplice Church and Allegheny Streets 466 West Main Street 136 South Hanover Street Dauphin 17018 Elizabethville 17023 Hummelstown 17036 Lower Swatara Township Police Middletown Boro Police Paxtang Boro Police 1499 Spring Garden Drive 50 West Emaus Street Elm and Derry Street Middletown 17057 Middletown 17057 Harrisburg 17111 Pillow Boro Police Susquehanna Twp. Police Wiconisco Township Police RD X1 1900 Linglestown Road Walnut Street Dalmatia 17017 Harrisburg 17110 Wiconisco 17097 Penn State University Police Roylaton Police Harrisburg International Airport Capital Campus US Route 230 Burd and Dock Streets Police Department Middletown 17057 Middletown 17057 Middletown 17057 Derry Township Police Highspire Boro Police Lower Paxton Township Police 229 Hockersville Road 640 Eshleman Street 75 South Houcks Road Hershey 17033 Highspire 17034 Harrisburg 17109 Lykens Boro Police Millersburg Boro Police Penbrook Boro Police 559 South Second Street Market Square 150 South 28th Street Lykens 17048 Millersburg 17061 Harrisburg 17103 Steelton Boro Police Swatara Township Police Williarnstown Boro Police 123 North Front Street 599 Eisenhower Blvd. 115 West Market Street Steelton 17113 Harrisburg 17111 Williamstown 17098 Penna Air National Guard Security Halifax Boro Police Harrisburg International Airport 2nd 6 Armstrong Streets Middletown 17057 Halifax 17032 SOURCE : Dauphin County Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1989.

9-37 I

TABLE 9-19 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS i ASSIGNED ON THE DAUPHIN COUNTY EMS NETWORK MEDIC UNITS 1 : Medic 1 Harrisburg River Rescue Zone 1 1119 S. Cameron Street PO Box 2908 1 Harrisburg 17105-2908 Medic 2 Middletown Zone 2 i Middletown E.M.S. PO Box 247 Middletown 17057-0247 1 ' Medic 3 Community General Osteopathic Zone 3 Hospital PO Box 3000 Harrisburg 17105-3000 Medic 4 Hershey Zone 4 Hershey Emergency Medical Service PO Box 195 Hershey 17033 Medic 5 Polyclinic Medical Center Zone 5 2601 North Third Street Harrisburg 17110

, Medic 6 Upper Dauphin County Emergency Zone 6 Services, Inc. Box 35 Millersburg 17061 Life Lion He ,copter University Hospital The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center/ Penn State University PO Box 850 Hershey 17033

AMBULANCES Company 1 Lower Paxton Zone 3 Lower Paxton Emergency Medical 1 Services, Inc. PO Box 6018 Harrisburg 17112-6018 1 Company 2 Middletown E.M.S. Zone 2 PO Box 247 1 Middletown 17057-0247

9-38 C TABLE 9-19 (continued) EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSIGNED ON THE DAUPHIN COUNTY EMS NETWORK Company 5 Hummelstown Emergency Medical and Zone 4 Rescue, Services Inc. PO Box 93 Hummelstown 17036 Company 6 Capital East Ambulance Association Zone 3 PO Box 4142 Harrisburg 17111 Company 7 Highspire Area Community Ambulance Zone 2 Association PO Box 104 Highspire 17034 Company 8 Tri-Community AMB Association Zone 3 1263 Pleasant Avenue Oberlin, Steelton 17113 Company 9 Susquehanna Township E.M.S. Zone 5 108 Short Street Harrisburg 17109 Company 10 River Rescue of Harrisburg Inc. Zone 1 PO Box 2908 Harrisburg 17105-2908 , Company 12 Dauphin-Middle Paxton Community Zone 5 Ambulance Association PO Box 109 Dauphin 17018 Company 13 Halifax Area Ambulance and Rescue Zone 6 Association PO Box 459 Halifax 17032 Company 19 Carsonville Ambulance Association Zone 6 Box 360 D Halifax 17032 Company 20 Millersburg Ambulance Association Zone 6 Box 72 Millersburg 17061 Company 21 Reliance Hose Co. Ambulance Assoc. Zone 6 PO Box 613 Elizabethville 17023

Company 22 Lykens & Wiconisco Fire Co. Zone 6 Ambulance Association, Inc. PO Box 69, 406 Market Street Lykens 17048 9-39 TABLE 9-19 (continued) EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSIGNED ON THE DAUPHIN COUNTY EMS NETWORK Company 24 Williamstown Ambulance Assoc. Zone 6 434 East Market Street Williamstown 17098 Company 27 Gratz Area Ambulance Assoc. Zone 6 PO Box 51 Gratz 17030 Company 30 Penbrook Ambulance Assoc. Zone 5 2806 Hoffer Street Harrisburg 17103 Company 39 Grantville Volunteer Fire Co. Zone 3 (Quick Response Squad)

I PO Box 39 Grantville 17028

, Company 45 Reliance Hose Co. #I Zone 3 6690 Derry Street Swatara 17111 Company 456 Chambers Hill Fire Co. Ambulance Zone 3 I 6400 Chambers Hill Road Swatara 17111 ' Company 48 Hershey Emergency Medical Services Zone 4 PO Box 195 Hershey 17033

, Company 50 Steelton Fire Dept. Ambulance Div. Zone 1 185 N. Front St., PO Box 7648 Steelton 17113-0648

' Company 54 Londonderry Fire Co. #1Ambulance Zone 2 PO Box 324 Middletown, PA 17057 Company 59 Lower Swatara Ambulance Association Zone 2 PO Box 26 Highspire 17034-0026 SOURCE: Dauphin County Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1989.

1 PUBLIC SEWERAGE FACILITIES Twenty-seven (27) out of the forty (40) municipalities in Dauphin County have public sewers serving all or a portion of their communities. The sewage collected in these municipalities is treated in one of twelve (12) municipal sewage treatment facilities located throughout the County. Map 9-18 shows the location of the 9-40

I TABLE 9-20 MUNICIPAL SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES CHARACTERISTICS-DAUPHIN COUNTY

HYDRAULIC (MILLION GALLONS/DAY) ORGANIC (LBS./DAY) , 1988 1993 1988 1993 APPROXIMATE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE LOCATION OF NAME OF MUNICIPALTIES POPULATION PERMITTED DAILY PERMITTED DAILY DAILY DAILY LEVEL OF TREATMENT FACILITY ...... SERVED SERVED CAPACITY LOADING CAPACITY LOADING ...... LOADING LOADING TREATMENT FACILITY BERRYSBURG BERRYSBURG BORO. 300 0.035 0.018- 0.035 0.020 16 17 SECONDARY BERRYSBURG BORO. 0.020

DAUPHIN DAUPHIN BORO. 1,537 0.157 0.062 0.157 0.080 96 97 PRIMARY CHURCH h ALLEGHENY STS. - DAUPHIN BORO.

DERRY DERRY TOWNSHIP 16-17,000 5.0 2.8 5.0 3.3 3,414 4,280 SECONDARY CLEARWATER ROAD SOUTH HANOVER HERSHEY HUMMELSTOWN CONEWAGO

ELIZABETHVILLE ELIZABETHVILLE 1,831 0.273 0.17 0.273 0.208 243 351 SECONDARY ELIZABETHVILLE BORO. WASHINGTON TWP.

HALIFAX HALIFAX BORO. 542 0.14 0.689 0.140 0.075- 146 150-200 SECONDARY SOUTH FRONT ST., HALIFAX TWP. CUSTOMERS 0.100 HALIFAX BORO.

HARRISBURG HARRISBURG CITY 175,000 30.9 24.6 30.9 27.0 (a) 24,163 30,000 SECONDARY CAMERON AND SUSQUEHANNA (1994 ELLIOTT STREETS SWATARA (1994 PROJECTIONS) PROJECTION) HARRISBURG LOWER PAXTON PENBROOK , PAXTANG STEELTON

HIGHSPIRE HIGHSP IRE 8,639 2.0 0.8 2.0 1.0 1,200 APPROX. SECONDARY INDUSTRIAL ROAD AND LOWER SWATARA 1,300 - (RECENTLY LUMBER STREET, MIDDLETOWN 1,400 UPGRADED) HIGHSPIRE

LYKENS LYKENS BORO. 2,181 0.27 0.24 (b) 0.295 360 360 SECONDARY NORTH AND ARLINGTON STREETS, LYKENS

MIDDLETOWN MIDD LETOWN 14,324 2.2 0.99 2.2 1.25 1,685 APPROX. SECONDARY SOUTH END OF LAWRENCE ROYALTON 1,800 STREET, MIDDLETOWN LOWER SWATARA

MILLERSBURG MILLERSBURG 45,050 1.0 0.371 1.0 0.378 706 934 SECONDARY MY0 PARK, UPPER PAXTON (AVG. DAILY (MAX MILLERSBURG LOAD) DAILY LOAD)

SWATARA SWATARA 6.3 (c) 2.8 6.3 4.2 3,424 APPROX SECONDARY RTE 322 h W. MAIN ST. HUMMELSTOWN 5,000 HUMMELSTOWN LOWER PAXTON W. HANOVER S. HANOKER TABLE 9-20 MUNICIPAL SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES CHARACTERISTICS - - -- HYDRAULIC (MILLION GALLONS/DAY) ORGANIC (LBS;/DAY) 1988 1993 1988 1993 APPROXIMATE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE LOCATION OF NAME OF MUNICIPALTIES POPULATION PERMITTED DAILY PERMITTED DAILY DAILY DAILY LEVEL OF TREATMENT FACILITY SERVED SERVED CAPACITY LOADING CAPACITY LOADING LOADING LOADING TREATMENT FACILITY ...... ------WILLIAMSTOWN WILLIAMSTOWN BORO 1,800 0.375 (d) 0.191 0.375 0.200 272 204 SECONDARY ORANGE STREET WILLIAMS TWP. WILLIAMSTOWN a. NOTE: DER projects Harrisburg plant will be overloaded in five years, based upon maximum projected three month average daily flows. Have submitted hydraulic analyses to DER to address the situation. b. Lykens plant is currently undergoing preliminary engineering study as it is close to capacity. c. Swatara plant recently completed expansion to capacity of 6.3 MGD. d. Williamstown plant was upgraded to -375 MGD in 1976.

SOURCE: Interviews with municipal treatment facility superintendents and other municipal officials, using municipal 1988 Sewerage Treatment Facility Annual Reports (Chapter 94 reports). Level of treatment information provided by PA DER. collection systems and treatment facilities. Table 9-20, Municipal Sewer Treatment Facilities Characteristics, describes the permitted capacities, the 1988 average daily loads, and 1993 estimated daily loads for both hydraulic flows and organic materials. e All of the facilities are projected to be within their permitted capacities in 1993 even with expected growth, with the possible exception of Harrisburg City and Lykens Borough. The Pennsylvania DER projects that the Harrisburg plant will be overloaded in five years (based upon maximum projected three month average daily flows), and hydraulic analyses have been begun to address the situation. The Lykens plant is undergoing a preliminary engineering study as it is currently close to capacity. Several package treatment plant serves various large industrial, communities and residential uses in the County. For example, Penn National Race Course and Three Mile Island have their own plants, as do five mobile home parks in the County. The twelve (12) public sewage treatment facilities serve approximately 285,000 residents of the County. Almost two-thirds of this total (175,000) is served by the City of Harrisburg plant. All of the systems are considered in good physical repair by the system operators. According to DER, all of the systems operate at a secondary level of sewage treatment, with the exception of the Dauphin Borough plant, which has primary treatment only. The Highspire plant was recently upgraded from primary to secondary treatment. The remaining thirteen (13) municipalities including East Hanover, Jackson, Jefferson, Londonderry, Lykens, Middle Paxton, Mifflin, Reed, Rush, Wayne and Wiconisco Townships and Gratz and Pillow Boroughs, use conventional on lot systems for sewage collection and disposal at this time. However, portions of these municipalities may receive sewage treatment at a nearby public treatment facility if and when these areas become sewered in the future. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS Public water services are provided throughout the County by eighteen public water systems. These systems are owned by various entities including municipalities, authorities, investors and the state government. In addition to the large public systems, approximately sixteen (16) small systems are provided for mobile home parks. These systems are self-contained and allow for minimal expansion to surrounding areas. The larger municipal/community systems are described in Table 9-21, Public Water Systems-Service Area and Source Data. With the exception of the Harrisburg International Airport Water Company, which primarily serves the airport and also serves several schools in the area, these public systems are responsible for servicing residential customers only. Table 9-21 indicates the public water systems serve approximately 185,000 persons with approximately 54,800 service connections. The largest populations served are those receiving

9-43 water from the Harrisburg City Water Authority (64,100 persons served), the Dauphin Consolidated Water Company (58,000 persons), a and the Keystone Water Company-Hershey (25,000 persons) . These three (3) companies/authorities combined account for approximately eighty (80) percent of the total persons served with public water in Dauphin County. The sources for these systems are primarily I surface water sources (i.e., various creeks, streams and a reservoir), while the majority of the smaller systems are dependent upon ground water sources or wells. At this time, there is ample water available both through the public systems and private on-lot wells; however, future growth will require system expansion and upgrades to assure adequate public water availability. The City of Harrisburg Water system, currently relying on its single source, the DeHart Dam Reservoir, is under a governmental mandate to reestablish a pumping station on I City Island to draw water from the Susquehanna River. This would provide the City System with an alternate water source. a UTILITIES Electric Dauphin County is provided electric service from two companies, Pennsylvania Power and Light and Metropolitan Edison. Service Areas are indicated below:

Pennsylvania Power and Lisht (P.P. C L.) - Upper Paxton, Mifflin, Lykens, Washington, Wiconisco, Williams, Reed, Halifax, Jackson, Wayne, Jefferson, Rush, Middle Paxton, Susquehanna, Lower Paxton, W. Hanover, Swatara, S. Hanover, Lower Swatara and Derry Townships, and Pillow, Millersburg, Berrysburg, Gratz, Elizabethville, Lykens, Williamstown, Halifax, Dauphin, Penbrook, Paxtang, Steelton, 1 Highspire and Humelstown Boroughs and the City of Harrisburg, and a small portion of Londonderry Township. I Metropolitan Edison - East Hanover, Conewago and most of Londonderry Township. In addition, two municipalities provide electric service to I their residents. These two municipalities, Middletown and Royalton Boroughs, buy their electric power directly from Metropolitan Edison for resale to customers. The areas servicedby these power companies are illustrated on Map 9-19.

9-44 TABLE 9-21 PUBLIC WATER SYSTW - SERVICE ARM AND SOURCE DATA DAUPHIN COUNTY PLANT SERVICE NAME OF WATER MUNICIPALITIES TYPE OF OWNER POPULATION CONNECT- SYSTEM ADDRESS SERVED SERVICE TYPE SERVED IONS SOURCE TREATMENT bauphin PO BOX 4151 Dauphin Residential I nvestor b8, OUU lj. . Stoney Cr Precniorinatloncoagulation Consolidated Harrisburg H&el stown swatara cr Water Co. 17111 Paxtang Beaver cr . coagulation Penbrook Sedimentation Highspire Disinfection Lower Paxton Tup. Middle Paxton Tup. Swatara Tun. -

Elizpbethville 235 Market St. Elizabethville Residential Investor 1,500 525 Co. Spring corrosion Elizabethville Washington ~wp. Canoe Gap control 17023 Spradley RD. Disinfection Co. Well Lentz Well

Gratz Borough PO BOX 68 Gratz Residential Authority 750 230 Co. spring Iron Removal Water Company GratZ 17030 Bowers Spr. Disinfection Drilled Well

Halifax BOrO. PO BOX 455 Halifax Residential Authority 2,500 591 Eight Spr . corrosion Authority Halifax 17032 Halifax Tup. Four Wells Control Harrisburg Cty 1690 S. 19th st. Harrisburg Residential Municipality 64,100 22,400 DeHart Dam Fluoridation Water Auth. Harrisburg Penbrook Reservoir Disinfection Susquehanna Tup. Harrisburg 208 Airport Dr. Lower Swatara Tup. state 2,000 243 Twelve Filtration Int’l Airport Middletown (immediate area Wells Disinfection Water Co. 17057 of Airport) Keystone Water 4349 carlisle Derry Township Residential Investor 25.000 7,000 Manada Cr. Prechlorination Co. - Hershey Pike Camp Hill (Hershey - Swatara Cr. coagulation 17011 Palmyra area) Lebanon MW SedimentationFiltration Taste L Odor Control Disinfection

Londonderrv Gever Church Rd. Londonderry Tup. Residential Municipality 30 12 One Well __--__ Township Mizdletown 1705 7 Loyalton Water RD #1 Washington Twp. Residential water 150 47 OneTWO SpringWells Disinfection Association Lykens 17048 Association

Lykens Borough 559 S. 2nd St. Residential Municipality 3,200 1.400 Market spr. Disinfection Authority Lykens 17048 E. Branch- Rattling cr. niddletown Emmaus and niddletown Residential Authority 10,200 N/A Iron Run Filtration Borough Catherine Sts. Swatara Cr. Fluoridation Authority Middletown 17057 Four Wells Disinfection Millersburg Market Square Millersburg Residential Authority 4.500 1,927 Nine Wells Corrosion Control Borough Millersburg 17061 Upper Paxton ~wp. Fluoridation Authority Disinfection Pillow Bora. PO BOX 206 Pillow Residential Authority 350 120 co. spring Disinfection Authority Pillow 17080 Mifflin Tup. Three Wells Two Springs

Royalton Bora. Burd k Dock Sts. Royalton Residential Authority 1.040 N/A niddletown __--_ Authority ‘Royalton 17057 Skyline Water 7723 W. Valley W. Hanover Tup. Residential Investor 350 107 One Well Disinfection Company View Road Harrisburg 17112

Steelton BOIO. 123 N. Front St. Steelton Residential Municipality 9,000 2,310 Susquehannr Prechlorination Authority Steelton 17113 River coagulation sedimintation Filtration softening Disinfection susquehanna 1900 Linglestown Susquehanna TUP. Residential Municipality 200 NIA Harrisburg - - - - - Tup. Authority Harrisburg 17110 city Williamstown PO Box 32 Williamstown Residential Authority 2,400 907 Rattling Cr. Filtration Bora Authority Williamstown Williams Twp. One Well corrosion Control 17098 Disinfection N/A - Information Not Available NOTE: Not all treatment methods are used on water from every source. SOURCES: Pennsylvania DER, “Active Public Water systems in Dauphin County”, data FY 1969. ‘Municipalities served’ data from Commercial-Industrial Development Handbook, TCRPC, 1982.

9-45 Natural Gas Sections of the County are provided natural gas by UGI Corporation. Natural gas is provided to the following municipalities: Middle Paxton, Susquehanna, Lower Paxton, West Hanover, Swatara, South Hanover, Lower Swatara, Derry, Londonderry, and Conewago Townships and Dauphin, Penbrook, Paxtang, Steelton, Highspire, Hummelstown, Middletown, and Royalton Boroughs as well as the City of Harrisburg. Map 9-20 charts the locations of the areas in Dauphin County that are provided with natural gas. Telephone Six companies provide telephone service to areas of Dauphin County. Most of the County is served by Bell of Pennsylvania. The other telephone companies and the approximate areas they serve are as follows: Commonwealth Telephone Company (Halifax area), Mahanoy and Mahantango Telephone Company (Pillow Borough), Contel of Pennsylvania, Inc. (The Hershey area and most of Derry Township), United Telephone Company (very small area around Shellsville, East Hanover Township). SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Solid wastes are by-products from the production and

I consumption of goods and services. Municipalities must deal with i solid wastes produced by residential, commercial, and institutional users in addition to sewage residues (i.e. sludges generated by septic systems) and miscellaneous wastes. With increasing amounts of solid waste being generated, the collection, handling, and disposal of solid waste is becoming a more critical issue. I As part of a continuing effort to address solid waste management, the Dauphin County Commissioners authorized the preparation of an update of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Phase I1 Dauphin County Solid Waste Management Plan Update was completed and adopted in 1988. However, at that time the State's solid waste management planning requirements were being revised and the Plan Update was not approved by the Department of Environmental , Resources. Subsequent to the passing of Act 101, the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of 1989, the Dauphin County Intermunicipal Solid Waste Authority was created and authorized to draft a new solid waste management plan to address the different provisions and requirements of Act 101. Working with a Local Government Advisory Committee, a Citizens Advisory Committee, a consulting engineer and solicitor, the Authority' s staff began working on the new plan. Public release of the plan , occurred in late 1990. The following statistics concerning existing conditions were , taken from the Dauphin County Solid Waste Management Plan which was adopted and accepted by Department of Environmental Resources in , the first quarter of 1991.

9-46 It is the responsibility of each municipality to manage the storage, collection, processing and disposal of its solid wastes. Of the total number of 40 municipalities in the County, sixteen have collection ordinances and the remaining twenty-four do not. These are oriented toward collection services and mainly tied into refuse hauler agreements. Also, seventeen have municipal hauler contracts and twenty-three do not. As of 1988, eighty-seven percent of the total popul-ation of the County received residential waste collection services. The collection of municipal solid waste is provided by twenty-three private haulers and three local municipalities (Harrisburg City, Steelton Borough and Lykens Borough). Disposal Sites/Facilities The only permitted solid waste disposal facility operating in the County at this time is the City of Harrisburg Incinerator. Opened in 1972 and operated by the City of Harrisburg, the incinerator is located along South 19th Street within the City limits. It operates seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day and has a design capacity of 720 tons/day. The facility produces steam and electricity. The Fulkroad Landfill, located along State Route 209 in Washington Township, was opened in 1978 and operated until December, 1987, when it was closed due to overfilling and other environmental problems. The current owners have appliedto DER for a permit to re-open the landfill. On September 27, 1990 DER granted the facility a permit for expansion. The re-opening of the Fulkroad landfill and expected expansion will now provide another option in handling Dauphin County's solid waste. The remaining disposal facilities receiving solid waste from Dauphin County are located outside the County, some as far away as Franklin, Lycoming, and Schuylkill Counties. The furthest distance is to a site in Luzerne County, a round trip of over 150 miles for County refuse haulers. All trips are made directly to the disposal sites, as there are no transfer stations within the County. In 1988, County residents (1980 Census Population: 232,317) produced a total of 557 tons of solid waste per day or 4.80 pounds per person per day. According to the Solid Waste Plan Update, if the amount of solid waste generated, increases as expected, the current use and capacity of existing disposal facilities would be exceeded by the year 2020. Therefore, various options for handling this increased waste load must be considered to meet future solid waste disposal and processing needs. Future Options For Handlinq Solid Waste The 1990 Dauphin County Solid Waste Management Plan provided suggested alternatives for the storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of the County's refuse to the year 2020. Many options were considered, including: retrofitting the City of Harrisburg 9-47 I I

Incinera-or, constructing a new incinerator at the existing City site or another site, transporting the solid waste to sites in York I or Chester Counties, and constructing a new sanitary landfill. After preliminary evaluations of the proposals, three were deemed by the Authority Board worthy of further evaluation; Harrisburg, Fulkroad and Modern. Following full evaluation of the three 8 proposals, Harrisburg, which -ha”s for the past seventeen years processed all municipal waste within ‘its borders at the Harrisburg Incinerator has agreed to continue to dispose municipal waste 1 generated within Harrisburg at the Harrisburg Incinerator for the ten years covered by this plan. Under Section 506(a) of Act 101, the County is without the power to designate the disposal point for I approximately 33.4 percent of the County‘s municipal waste. Highspire and Swatara, pursuant to twenty-five year municipal contracts executed prior to the effective date of Act 101, will send all municipal waste generated within their borders to the York Incinerator. York will therefore process and dispose approximately 96 percent of municipal waste generated within the County. Therefore, the remaining balance of the County’s municipal waste will be disposed by Fulkroad and Modern who were selected by the Authority to provide that service. The Plan provides that of the municipal waste generated within the County, 46.6 percent will be disposed at the Fulkroad Landfill and twenty (20) percent will be disposed at the Modern Landfill.

9-48 LEGEND MILLERSBURG AREA

UPPER DAUPHIN AREA

HALIFAX AREA

CENTRAL DAUPHIN ARE i--$ LOWER DAUPHIN AREA SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSt I I CITY OF HARRISBURG MSTE ELTO N - H I G HS P I RE L\A MIDDLETOWN AREA

DERRY TOWNSHIP

AP 9-1 SCHOOL DISTRICTS DAUPHIN COUNTY,

* REED TOWNSHIP STUDENTS ATTEND Pt$RY COUNTY SCHOOLS P E N N SYLVAN I A * RUSH, WICONISCO. WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP AND WILLIAMSTOWN BORO 1992 STUDENTS ATTEND SCHUYLKILL COUNTY SCHOOLS >

ZONE 1 FI I I ZONE 2 ZONE 3

ZONE 4

ZONE 3 ZONE

ZONE

ZONE EMERG c ZONE 6 20 MINUTE RESPONSE UNACHIEVABLE S

MAP 9-21 PUBLIC UTI LIT1ES (PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AREAS) DAUPHIN COUNTY, P E N N SYLVAN IA 1992

PUBLIC WATER SERVICE AREAS I 1 CHAPTER 10 ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCES The administration of Dauphin County is responsible for I implementing the Dauphin County Comprehensive Plan. This section will focus on the elected officials, the appointed officials, the County authorities, the Dauphin County Planning Commission, the I Tri-County Planning Commission, and other County administrative .. offices. A discussion on the Dauphin County codes and their enforcement relative to the planning and development process will I be provided, as well as a review of the County's revenues and expenditures. These general discussions will assist in establishing a basis to promote both the plan design and its I implementation. ADMINISTRATION I The County Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Act of August 9, 1955, as amended) defines laws concerning counties that are classified as Third through Eighth Class Counties, based on their population. In 1984 Dauphin County's population was 235,812. I This classifies it as a Fourth Class County, and therefore Articles IV through XV of the County Code outline the rules governing all Dauphin County officials. Dauphin County maintains twelve officers 1 which are elected by the qualified electors of the county to manage and maintain the variety of executive, legislative and judicial I affairs of the county. The chief elected body of the Dauphin County is the Board of Commissioners. This three member Board serves as the executive and legislative office of the government. In addition, they are I responsible for hiring and appointing all county personnel. Financially, the commissioners control the flow of money within the government. With such an important and influential role in the I workings of the county, the board of commissioners will also play a part in implementing the comprehensive plan. The position of Chief Clerk is the highest appointed position I in the governmental structure of Dauphin County. The daily operations of County business. are the chief concern of the Chief Clerk. The Chief Clerk frequently maintains accurate records of i Board meetings and accounts, acts as a liaison between the Board of Commissioners and other County departments, supervises County I elections, and prepares budgets. PLANNING IN DAUPHIN COUNTY The Dauphin County Planning Commission and the Tri-County I Regional Planning Commission provide planning services for Dauphin County. I The primary duties of the Dauphin County Planning Commission are to administer and enforce the county subdivision and land I development ordinances in those areas of the county not regulated 10-1 I I by a municipal subdivision and land development ordinance. These primary duties are outlined specifically in the Pennsylvania I Municipalities Planning Code, commonly known also as Act 247. The M.P.C. states that all of the subdivision and land development plats located in municipalities that do maintain subdivision and land development ordinances must be reviewed and reported by the 1 County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must also maintain the task of holding public meetings and public hearings when they become necessary. I In addition to these basic responsibilities the Board of Commissioners can request that the Planning Commission provide other services outlined in the Municipalities Planning Code, such I as: (1) Preparation and updating a comprehensive plan, (2) Main- tenance of certain files and records, (3) Preparation of codes and ordinances (i.e. zoning, subdivision, building code, housing code), 1 (4) Preparation of environmental studies and (5) Preparation of Capital Improvement Programs. I THE TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION In addition to the duties provided by the Dauphin County Planning Commission, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s I staff maintains responsibilities that focus on the county‘s transportation planning. I Created in 1965, the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study has continued with the planning process to establish a transportation system that will adequately serve the growing needs of the Harrisburg urbanized area. Serving as the H.A.T.S. lead agency, I the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s responsibilities have grown to include not only the metropolitan area, but also the whole Dauphin, Cumberland and Perry County region. The H.A.T.S. planning I work program addresses the following issues: - Critical Bridges 1 - Unresolved highway projects - Conrail branchline abandonments - Community conservation/ Economic Development - Mass transit planning assistance I - Energy conservation, congestion reduction and safety (ECONS) I In addition to the H.A.T.S. program, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission provides regional support services that include : Regional Annual Reports, a quarterly newsletter, functioning as an affiliate data center for the Pennsylvania Data I Center, and providing area wide clearing house activities and special studies. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission also contracts with several Dauphin County municipalities under the I Local Planning Assistance Program. As of 1991, seven (7) boroughs and thirteen (13) townships participate in the Local Planning Assistance program. The list of those that have contracted for I these services in Dauphin County is as follows:

10-2 I i Conewago Township Lykens Borough Derry Township Middletown Borough E. Hanover Township Middle Paxton Township Gratz Borough Pennbrook Borough Halifax Township S. Hanover Township Highspire Borough Steelton Borough Hummelstown Borough Susquehanna Township Londonderry Township Swatara Township Lower Paxton Township Upper Paxton Township Lower Swatara Township W. Hanover Township Through this program the TCRPC staff provides direct professional planning assistance to the respective municipal planning commissions. The service includes consultation on comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision and land development and other aspects of local planning programs. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission encompasses the region of Dauphin, Perry and Cumberland counties. The conimission is composed of thirty-one voting members representing local planning organizations, municipal officials, county planning commissions and associations representing minority interests. Members are appointed biannually by each county's Board of Commissioners. The TCRPC meets four times yearly with an executive committee, comprised of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer, which meets monthly outside the full commission. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission staff includes an Executive Director, Associate Director, eight (8) staff planners four (4) technical and clerical staff. The staff is responsible for the daily activities of the Commission and the professional planning services. AUTHORITIES Seven county authorities assist the elected and appointed officials and the Dauphin County Planning Commission in the daily operations of County government. The Intermunicipal Solid Waste Authority, the General Authority, the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, the Hospital Authority, and the Industrial Development Authority all meet regularly, while the Leasing and Improvement Authority rarely meets. The Dauphin County Intermunicipal Solid Waste Authority was established in December of 1987 from Act 97 of the Municipal Waste Management Planning Process, and staff members from the Authority were hired in February 1989. The goal of the Authority is to provide Dauphin County residents, businesses and industries with a countywide program for municipal solid waste that is environmentally safe, economical, and utilizes proven technology. The Authority, which is located at Suite 103, 1800 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, is developing a comprehensive solid waste management plan for Dauphin County.

10-3 I

The Dauphin County General Authority, created in February 1984, is located at 100 Chestnut Street, Suite 305 in Harrisburg. I This Authority, which maintains a five member Board of Directors, issues tax exempt bonds and controls several parking garages, as well as the parking lot at the Harrisburg International Airport. I The Dauphin County Housing Authority was established in 1959 to operate housing assistance programs for low to moderate income residents. Its five member board operates throughout Dauphin I County, with the exception of the City of Harrisburg (the Harrisburg Housing Authority maintains jurisdiction in this area). The same five member board operates the Dauphin County I Redevelopment Authority, which was created in 1958 to direct community development programs such as the Community Development Block Grants. Working in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, they assist with the I implementation of these programs. The authorities are separate entities, but work together and share several staff members. I The Dauphin County Hospital Authority was established in October 1971 to assist hospitals in Dauphin County in obtaining tax free bonds. Currently the five member board is assisting the Harrisburg Hospital and the Osteopathic Center in these endeavors. I The Dauphin County Industrial Development Authority, a division of the Dauphin County Office of Economic Development, I serves the public by offering a wide array of information regarding industry in the County. Materials available in this office relate to topics such as industrial-commercial site/building availability, I demographic research, prospect management, and finance packaging. The office is located in the Veterans Memorial Building in Harrisburg. I PLANNING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (M.P.C.), Act I 247, gives municipalities including counties, the power and authority to establish and enforce land use controls. This enabling legislation allows municipalities to prepare comprehensive development plans, and to establish zoning, subdivision/land I development and planned residential development ordinances. (M.P.C, Act 247, 8th edition). I The Municipalities Planning Code differentiates the county's ordinance jurisdiction in municipalities that maintain local development ordinances and in municipalities that do not. The I power of the county governing body to enact, amend and repeal subdivision and land development, zoning and planned residential development ordinances is limited to land in cities, boroughs, incorporated towns and townships that do not have these ordinances I in effect at the local level. Dauphin County does not maintain a zoning or planned I residential development ordinance. Without a comprehensive plan these ordinances would lack the essential study documentation and 10-4 I 1 support information to effectively coordinate land use development I as intended by the Municipalities Planning Code. However, once the Dauphin County Comprehensive Plan is adopted, enacting a zoning and P.R.D. ordinances consistent with the Municipalities Planning Code I may become possible. It is important to note that following the adoption of a county comprehensive plan, any proposed action of a municipal I governing body within the county relating to (1) the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlarging of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse: (2) the I location, erection, demolition of sale of any public structures located within the municipality: or (3) the adoption, amendment or repeal of any official map subdivision and land development ordinance, zoning ordinance, or planned residential development m ordinance must be submitted to the county planning commission for its recommendation prior to municipal action on such matters. I Through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, any proposed action of the governing body of any school district located within the county relating to the location,demolition,removal or sale of any school district structure or land must be submitted to the I county's planning commission for recommendations prior to the execution of such actions by the governing body of the school I district. These requirements are specifically outlined and stated in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code and are legally binding I to all local governmental units within the county. The adoption of a county comprehensive plan plays a significant role in placing the county planning commission in a position to formally and effectively influence the development process as it occurs at the I local level. I REVENUE Adequate financial resources are important for a community to implement successful programs, maintain effective county government management, and provide services to county residents. This section I identifies the present sources of revenues utilized by Dauphin County and other potential revenue sources. I The sources of revenue in Dauphin County as budgeted for 1990 are listed below. I Source of Revenue Percentase of Total Revenue Taxes -Real Estate 28.0 I -Personal Property 1.3 Intergovernmental Revenues 26.5 Charges for Services I -Fees/Commissions 21.7 Fines & Forfeits ---- I Other Financing Sources 10-5 I

-Operating Transfers, Borrowing Proceeds, C Other 14.4 I Investment Earnings 1.7 Miscellaneous Revenues 1.7 Licenses c Permits .01 Fines C Forfeits ---- 1 Fund Equity 4.4 The Real Estate Taxes, which are levied on real estate within I Dauphin County, have rates that are fixed by the County Commissioners to meet their budgetary needs. Public buildings, charitable organizations, and churches are exempt from these taxes. I These taxes comprise almost 30% of the total of revenues budgeted. Intergovernmental Revenues, which are obtained from federal, state and local government sources, such as social security programs, provide 26.5 percent of the total revenues. I The services that Dauphin County provides and charges fees for include Filing and Recording Fees, District Justice fees and I Sheriff services. The revenue generated by these fees accounts for approximately 21.7 percent of the total revenue. The remaining categories account for smaller percentages of the County's revenue. I EXPENDITURES For budgeting and accounting purposes, the extensive list of u areas to which the Dauphin County revenues are allocated has been generalized. The categories of expenditures and the percentage of the total they utilize in the 1990 budget are listed below. I Expenditure Cateqory Percentaqe of Total Expenditures Human services 47.4 I Public Safety 12.3 General Government 11.3 Judic ia1 8.5 I Operating Transfers 8.3 Public Works 5.5 Debt Service 3.6 Conservation and Development 1.0 I Culture and Recreation .6 Miscellaneous 1.5 I The category of Human Services utilizes almost half of the amount or funds allocated. These funds are allocated to the departments such as the Agency on Aging, Children and Youth, Drug I and Alcohol, Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Weatherization, Dauphin Manor, the Aspin Center, and Transportation. Public Safety funds are sent to the prison, the Woodside Center, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, and Emergency Management. I The General Government expenses operate the following offices: the Commissioners' Office, Voter Registration, Controller's, Budget I and Finance, Tax assessment, Personal Property Tax, Purchasing, Personnel, Maintenance, Security, Data Processing, Printing, Public

10-6 I I I

Defender’s, Recorder of Deeds, Veterans Affairs, and Microfilm. I Judicial costs cover the fees for courts, District Attorneys’ Office, Coroner, Sheriff, Prothonotary, Register of Wills, Law Library, Costs and Fines, District Justices, and Domestic I Relations. Public Works, which accounts for about 5.5 percent of the total budget, funds the offices of Bridge Maintenance and Solid I Waste Management. Conservation and Development funds maintain the Conservation District, the Agricultural Extension, and The Office of Economic Development. The Parks and Recreation department is I covered financially by the category of Culture and Recreation. The remaining Category of Miscellaneous funds the offices of Worker‘s 1 Compensation, Pension Funding, and Insurance Payments. I I I I I I I I I I I I 10-7 I I CHAPTER 11 I STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION I As the development process occurs throughout Dauphin County, it generates inevitable impacts on the social, economic, political and physical elements of the County. Such impacts are experienced I in terms of costs and benefits. The resulting network of buildings, facilities, improvements, and services created through the development process can either stimulate or retard development and it's related support elements. While non-governmental market I pressures induce the development and use of land, municipal plans and regulations are the final determining factors and play the most influential role in managing the development process. Therefore, I the municipal governing body is the primary entity in a position to coordinate the overall pattern of growth within its corporate jurisdiction. I

' County government in Pennsylvania operates within a limited legislative scope of plan implementation due to the autonomous nature of the local governments (i.e. Townships and Boroughs) I comprising it. The plans and regulations of local governments have a tendency to be potentially conflicting. A function of the County Comprehensive Plan is to provide the instrument local officials I need to pattern their municipal comprehensive plans and policies after in a County-wide coordinated and uniform manner. Through the adoption of this comprehensive plan, the County is taking the opportunity to assist local officials in establishing and I maintaining such a coordinated planning program on a County-wide basis, while maintaining the autonomy local governments are granted through the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. The primary I function of the Plan is to assist the County, it's operating agencies, and line departments in fulfilling their composite and individual responsibilities to meet the various needs of the County's citizenry. I It is clear that the Plan must serve many clients, having different needs and desires. Therefore, the final Plan document is I based on a planning program that seeks to balance the economic, physical, social, and political elements comprising Dauphin County. I In order to create a practical and effective Comprehensive Plan for Dauphin County, it is necessary to articulate a set of acceptable goals and objectives to be accomplished through plan implementation. To achieve these goals and objectives on a County- I wide basis a commitment must be made to balance loyalty to localism and the need for decision making by those in authority closest to the problem, with a loyalty to coordination and decision making I evolving from intergovernmental cooperation. This is based on the principle that better planning is accomplished where there is mutual respect and understanding among decision makers. To this I end, the following statements of goals and objectives are established and presented in priority order.

11-1 I I 1

To provide a clearer understanding of the purposes goals and I objectives serve, they are defined as follows: I GOALS - BROAD DIRECTIONS Goals are intended to function as direction-setters, 'not specific actions. They set ideal future conditions toward which objectives are directed. They are general expressions of planning I values and, therefore, are somewhat abstract in nature. They often are not quantifiable, time-dependent or suggestive of specific I actions for achievement. OBJECTIVES - SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS Objectives are action-oriented statements comprised of 1 policies, standards and/or principles that establish a set of specific steps to which the governing body and planning commission I commit themselves in an effort to achieve related goals. The following Goals and Objectives are presented in priority order and reflect serious consideration of the input received from I local officials and private sector organizations of the County. I LAND USE (LU): PRIORITY #1 GOAL : Through effective planning and intergovernmental cooperation, establish interrelated land use patterns I that are logical, compatible, mutually supportive, responsive to the needs of the residents, and reflect the limitations and potential of both the natural and man- I made environments of the County. OBJECTIVES : I PRIORITY LU-1 Protect existing and promote desirable future urban and rural development through the adoption of compatible I municipal zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development regulations, and building codes. I LU-2 Encourage and assist local governments to prepare, adopt, and implement municipal comprehensive plans that are based on current planning principles and in compliance I with state enabling legislation. LU-3 Establish a continuous planning program that accurately monitors growth and changing socio-economic conditions I throughout the County in order to maintain a current data base for the County Comprehensive Plan and effectively coordinate the development process as it occurs through- I out the County. I 11-2 I I LU-4 Effectively administer and enforce the Dauphin County Subdivision and Land Development Regulations to properly 1 manage development in those municipalities not having such regulations. LU-5 Support the Local Planning Assistance Program adminis- 1 tered by the Dauphin County Planning Commission and Tri- County Regional Planning Commission. I LU-6 Support the Dauphin County Planning Commission and Tri- County Regional Planninng Commission in their efforts to promote and implement planning projects at all levels of I government and private activities. ENVIRONMENT (E): PRIORITY #2 I GOAL : To promote the preservation and enhancement of the natural, historic, cultural, scenic, and environmentally sensitive features of the County so as to assure the I harmonious and mutually supportive coexistence of both the man-made and natural environments. OBJECTIVES : I E-1 Implement a county-wide solid waste collection and waste reduction/recyclingprogramthat effectively collects and 1 disposes of solid waste material, and recycles appropriate waste in an environmentally sound manner. E-2 Promote regulation of residential and non-residential I activities to minimize or totally prevent such problems as water pollution, air pollution, noise, odor, and other possible harmful effects to the environment resulting 1 from development. E-3A Promote greater public awareness, education, and support 1 of sensitive environmental issues and problems, as they effect the County. E-3B Adopt and effectively implement a Dauphin County Storm I Water Management Plan. E-4 Support the environmental program efforts of the Dauphin I County Conservation District and encourage its utilization by both the public and private sectors in resolving and preventing environmental degradation. I E-4A Promote and support the efforts of the Agricultural Land Preservation Board whose purpose is to protect viable agricultural lands by acquiring agricultural conservation I easements which prevents the development or improvement of the land for any purpose other than agricultural production and to encourage land owners to make long term I committment to agriculture by offering them financial incentives and security of land use. 11-3 I I 1

E-5 Incorporate appropriate provisions in the County and I local subdivision and land development regulations, and local zoning ordinances for the preservation of wetlands, 1 steep-slopes and woodlands on development sites. E-6 A variety of techniques such as acquisition, e&sem%nts, environmental protection zoning, eminent *: domain, dedication, and transfer of development rights should be I utilized by all levels of government to protect and preserve the environment. I E-7 Encourage open-space preservation techniques in Municipal Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances and Zoning Ordinances. I E-8 Limitations imposed by soil suitability and geologic conditions should be a major development concern; with adequate provisions requiring developers to address such I conditions being incorporated into local land management ordinances. E-9 Encourage the continued existence and adequate funding of I federal and state programs which subsidize construction and maintenance of sewage treatment and water supply I facilities. E-10 Development should be very limited within established floodplain areas, with the most severe limitations I occurring in the established floodway. Floodplain development must comply with provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program and Pennsylvania Floodplain I Management Act. E-11 Future growth patterns should be directed to ensure the protection of municipal and private water supplies. I Surface and ground water quality and flow recharge must be maintained at levels which are environmentally acceptable. I E-12 Encourage municipalities to create Environmental Advisory Councils to help review development plans and provide I advice on environment issues. E-13 Encourage the preservation and conservation of marine I life and wildlife habitat. E-14 Support efforts of the Dauphin County Historical Society and local historical societies to preserve and maintain the significant historical, archeological, and cultural I elements of Dauphin County’s environment. E-15 Support efforts of the -Dauphin County Emergency I Management Office in its disposal program of toxic wastes within the County. I 11-4 I I

E-16 Encourage good forest management practices on public and private lands, including the protection of wood products, I forest stand improvement, and reforestation. E-17 Development restrictions should be placed on proposals I located on land having slope limitations; in particular those having slopes in excess of fifteen (15) percent. E-18 Support efforts to establish and enforce regulations I which require mineral extraction to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, and provide for the restoration of mineral extraction areas. I TRANSPORTATION (T): PRIORITY #3

GOAL : Through effective planning, assist in establishing an I adequate, safe, convenient, and balanced transportation network in conjunction with land development that provides for the efficient movement of people and goods I by highway, transit, rail, and air modes of travel. OBJECTIVES : I PRIORITY T-1 Support and participate in the Harrisburg Area Transpor- I tation Study as a positive regional approach to coordinating the land development process with the provision of an adequate transportation system necessary to support I land use activities. T-2 Assist state, regional, and local governments in coordinating the location and improvement of traffic I coordidors in an effort to maintain proper traffic movement to and from residential and non-residential areas. I T-3 Support the HATS development and maintenance of a transpor-tation system computer model as an enhancement of the transportation, land use, and air quality planning I capability of the region. T-4 Promote utilization of the best available technology to I manage traffic, avoid congestion, conserve energy, and provide for safe vehicular movements. I T-5 Encourage the expansion of public transit service and accessibility throughout the County based on development densities, employment locations, and the needs of the transportation disadvantaged (e.g. poor, elderly, I handicapped, etc. .) T-6 Encourage and support enforcement of provisions in both I the County and municipal subdivision and land development regulations that require developers to properly assess I 11-5 I I

and physically install street related improvements to I satisfy the access and transportation demands generated by their developments.

I T-7A r. Establish and promote implementation of the Transpor- ... c- ,- tation Plan Element of the Dauphin County Comprehensive Plan, and support its integration into the development of an area-wide transportation plan for the Tri-County I Region. T-7B Transportation plans shall be formulated on the basis of I transportation needs with the development of comprehensive long-term financial plans. Consideration should also be given to long-range land use plans, developed objectives and overall social economic, I environmental, system performance, and energy conservation goals and objectives, and their probable effect on the future development of the urban area. The I planning process shall include an analysis of alternative transportation resources and to meet the needs for new transportation facilities. I T-8 Encourage area-wide employers to develop transportation demand strategies to respond to employment related I transportation problems. T-9 Support local area-wide efforts within the County to plan for the resolution of localized (inter/intra-municipal) I transportation issues and problems. T-1OA All transportation modes should be continually monitored and evaluated for their adequacy to meet local, county, I state, and national needs, as well as be responsive to energy conservation concerns. I T-1OB With many of the local transportation problems becoming national issues, coupled with the fast growth being experienced in the Harrisburg region, it is imperative that the transportation systems and infrastructure be I thoroughly examined and directions taken to support continued economic development. Rail transportation is an opportunity which must be considered now, even if the I option will not be feasible until future years. Without maintaining the alternative for rail transportation, rights-of-way will be lost to development pressures and I future rail potential will become prohibitive. For the near term, it is appropriate to review the current service configuration of Capital Area Transit, the fixed route bus service provider. Current routes and schedules I should be reviewed for possible change as well as methods to support an expanded bus transit system. I T-11 Encourage local governments to maintain street upgrading and maintenance programs which are focused on areas of I greatest need. 11-6 I I

T-12 Maintain an adequate County-level bridge replacement and improvement program. I T-13 Support the establishment development of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). I T-14 Support efforts by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Aviation in regard to the continued improvement and development of both Harrisburg I International Airport and Capital City Airport. T-15 Promotethe application clean air regulations in I transportation projects. T-16 Protect land zoned industrial along Conrail freight lines in the County. I T-17 Support the efforts of the Dauphin County Transportation Department to maintain its specified transportation I services. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES (CF/S): PRIORITY #4A I GOAL : To promote and assist in the provision of a complete and adequate system of community facilities and services such as police and fire protection, health services, schools, I libraries, solid waste disposal, recreation, water supply, and sewage disposal that is responsive to the needs ofthe residents and non-residential establishments I of the County. OBJECTIVES : I PRIORITY I CF/S-l Update the Dauphin County Official Sewage Plan and ,establisha continuous monitoring program to maintain it as a current document which can be utilized to coordinate the provision of sewage as it occurs at the local level. I CF/S-2 Promote efficient and environmentally sound methods of solid waste collection and disposal through the I guidelines set forth by the Dauphin County Solid Waste Management Plan. CF/S-3 Land Use Plans should be closely coordinated with Sewage I and Water Supply Plans as to encourage development to occur in those areas planned for establishment or extension of sewage and water supply systems, and I discourage intensive development in areas to be serviced by on-lot systems. I CF/S-4 Encourage and assist local governments to adopt and implement Official Municipal Sewage Plans (Act 537 Plans) 11-7 I I I

that adequately plan for public collection and treatment, I as well as, on-lot subsurface systems. CF/S-5 Encourage the preparation development of stormwater I management plans for local watersheds until the County stormwater plan is complete. CF/S-6 Encourage the adoption and enforcement of local ordinance I provisions that require developers to accurately determine the water supply needs generated by their development proposals, assess the capacity and quality of I available water supply sources and, in situations utilizing on-site subsurface water supplies, design their development proposals in such a manner to avoid detrimental on-site and off-site impacts on the affected I aquifer. CF/S-7 Encourage local governments and developers to closely I coordinate development proposals with the appropriate water supplier in order to assure the proper installation of water supply systems and adequate provision of potable I water for consumption. CF/S-8A Update the Dauphin County Water Supply Plan and establish a continuous monitoring program to maintain it as a 1 current document which can be utilized to coordinate the provision of water service as it occurs at the local I level. CF/S-8B When drought conditions exist within the County and local region as determined by the Governor’s Declaration and Department of Environmental Resources (DER), support the I Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency as it works with water purveyors to establish local drought I contingency plans and emergency operations plans. CF/S-9 Provide for effective protection services dispatching and coverage between municipal and State Police agencies, I municipal fire companies, and local ambulance companies by continuing to maintain the County-wide emergency response communications network. I CF/ S-1OA Encourage local governments to support and upgrade police, fire and rescue, emergency medical support, and member training as may be necessary to maintain high I levels of efficiency. CF/ S- 1OB Promote development of a comprehensive human services and medical facilities delivery system that facilitates I coordination of the various local, County, State, and Federal programs and agency activities, and eliminates I duplication or gaps in services. CF/S-11 Support local school district efforts to establish and I maintain educational programs and facilities necessary to 11-8 1 I

service the mental, physical, and social needs of children and adults; including the gifted and I handicapped.

CF/ S- 12 The provision of a variety of recreation opportunities to satisfy the needs of County residents should b.e I encouraged. Recreation programs and facility locations should be focused on preserving the cultural, historic, and natural features, as well as environmentally I sensitive areas of the County. Strive to update the County's Recreation Plan in the near future. I CF/ S-13 Support the Dauphin County Library System and its appropriate expansion as needs dictate. CF/S-14 Encourage local governments to meet local recreation I needs through land acquisition and park development programs; to include local ordinance provisions that require developers to provide for the recreation needs I generated by their development proposals. CF/S-15 Where possible, recreation facilities that provide for both active and passive uses should be located close to I where people live, and should be closely integrated into the planning of future residential areas. I CF/S-16 Encourage local school districts to allow for the appropriate utilization of their facilities for community indoor and outdoor recreation activities. I CF/ S-17 Improvements and maintenance of game habitat by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and stream environments by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission should be continued and I encouraged in Dauphin County. CF/S-18 Improvements to existing and development of future State I Parks should be provided by the Commonwealth in accordance with the State Recreation Plan, and as the demand for their use increases. I CF/S-19 The County should promote preservation of the Dauphin County segment of the Horse-Shoe Trail and provide for its appropriate expansion, preservation efforts should 1 also be focused on the Appalachian Trail, the Harrisburg River Front Bicycle Trail, and Capital Area Greenbelt proposal. I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED): PRIORITY #4B I GOAL: To promote a local economy which: (1) Provides ample opportunities for all residents to pursue their desired standard of living, (2) Maintains a high quality of life I in the area, (3) Ensures long-term viability in the "global marketplace,I' and (4) Sustains an adequate tax 11-9 I I I I base to support essential "public" goods and services. OBJECTIVES : I PRIORITY ED-1 Establish an economic data base and/or monitoring apparatus which: 1 (1) identifies problems and opportunities within the local economy, (2) serves a support role in fulfilling the other I objectives, and (3) provides an indepth understanding of the regional economy. I ED-2A Attract business and industries that: (1) create high quality jobs, (2) exploit under utilized facilities/commmercial I resources, and (3) enhance the existing/emerging industrial mix. I ED-2B Create a consortium (cooperative) of economic development organizations to enhance the ability to attract appropriate businesses and industries through concerted efforts that: I (1) identify and recruit likely prospects, (2) provide essential information for prospect decision making, I (3) identify suitable site/facility locations for prospects, (4) develop finance and location incentives, and I (5) host visiting prospects ED-3 Enable startups and expansions of businesses in the County by : I (1) developing capital investment resources (public & private), (2) providing market data, and I (3) assisting in business planning and management development. ED-4A Provide adequate infrastructure to support ongoing I commercial and industrial activity. (see other GOALS: Transportation, Land Use, Community Facilities and I Services) ED-4B Provide adequate amenties for quality of life to retain a high quality workforce in the County. (see other D GOALS: Housing, Community Facilities and Service) ED-5 Create a consortium (cooperative) of education and training organizations to ensure adequate labor force I development which: (1) enables new entrants to the labor force I (2) provides the proper mix of skills to fill labor 11-10 I I

force demand, (3) retrains displaced workers, and I (4) assists employers in locating a suitable workforce. I

HOUSING (HI: PRIORITY #S I GOAL : To promote the provision of a sufficient supply and appropriate mix of housing types within the financial reach of all citizens of the County. I OBJECTIVES : PRIORITY I H-1 Develop a county-wide housing plan. The County should develop a housing plan, in consultation with other I appropriate groups and agencies, to meet current and projected county-wide housing needs, with emphasis upon the housing needs of low and moderate income households I and specialized housing needs of the elderly and the disabled. H-2 Encourage local governments to adopt policies and 1 ordinances that permit the expansion of residential opportunities by allowing for a variety of housing designs, types, and values to meet the housing needs of I all segments of the County's present and future population. H-3 Integrate housing opportunities for households of all I income levels. Municipalities throughout the County should integrate housing opportunities for households of all income levels through the use of innovative zoning I techniques such as inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning allows a prospective developer to build at higher densities then would normally be allowed in exchange for I a commitment to build certain numbers of units, as part of the overall development, that are less expensive than would otherwise be available and that would meet an unmet housing need. I H-4 Support the Dauphin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority efforts to assist in the provision of low and I moderate income housing opportunities throughout the County. I H-5 Provide for the specialized housing needs of elderly and disabled residents of the County. The housing needs of the elderly, physically, developmentally, and mentally disabled residents of the County differ from those of the I general population. I 11-11 I I

H-6 Encourage local governments to adopt reasonable building, 1 housing, and property maintenance codes which will eliminate and prevent conditions that contribute to and perpetuate blight and poor quality living environments in I the County.

H-7 Recognize and promote manufactured housing as a 1 legitimate and permanent type of affordable housing. Manufactured housing, (housing built in conformance with federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety I Standards) should be permitted, through zoning, in all appropriate residential districts in each municipality throughout the County consistent with the level of need i for this type of housing. H-8 Develop and maintain a supply of decent, permanent housing affordable to low and moderate income persons, I including those persons with specialized housing needs, at levels sufficient to meet current and projected needs. I H-9 Available federal and state funding programs should be utilized as effectively as possible by the public and private sectors for the construction and/or subsidy of 1 housing throughout the County. H-10 Provide for emergency housing needs. Shelters should continue to be provided by local non-profit organizations I to address emergency housing needs but should not be used as substitutes for permanent housing or as long term solutions. I H-11 Where practicable and financially feasible, emphasis should be placed on the conservation and preservation of housing in the older areas of the County; those areas of I concentration being primarily located in the Boroughs. H-12 Support and enforce Federal fair housing laws which I prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of race, creed, national origin, age, sex or disability. I H-13 Increase community awareness about housing problems and issues throughout the County. The County in cooperation with existing housing advocacy groups, should work to I identify housing needs and issues in the community, and distribute information about these needs and issues for public information purposes, and for purposes of I encouraging community action to address these needs and issues. I I 11-12 I CHAPTER 12 FUTURE LAND USE The quality of life for Dauphin County residents is to a great extent determined by the land use patterns created by development. Those municipalities of the County that have taken the step to participate in the comprehensive planning process and implement their plans, have provided a greater degree of assurance to their residents that proper living and working environments will be established and maintained. Currently, 23 of the 40 municipalities in Dauphin County have adopted a municipal comprehensive plan, 22 have adopted a zoning ordinance, 32 have adopted local subdivision and land development regulations, and 26 local governing bodies have established a municipal planning commission to advise them on local planning and development matters. It is therefore clear that the seeds of comprehensive planning have taken root in Dauphin County. Fortunately, those municipalities experiencing the greatest development pressures have the planning devices and administrative structure in place to manage growth. The Dauphin County Planning Commission has, over the years, endorsed single-purpose comprehensive plan elements prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. However, until now these plan elements have not been consolidated into a comprehensive plan text for adoption. Examples of such plans and reports include Conservation and Open Space, Stormwater Management, Organized Recreation Facilities, Historic Preservation, Agricultural Preservation, Water Supply, Future Land Use, and Community Facilities. As required by Pennsylvania legislation, the County Commissioners have adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan and Sewage Plan. The Solid Waste Management Plan is the most current. Unfortunately, with the demise of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's "701" Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant Program, funding availability has been severely reduced and updates of the previously mentioned planning elements did not take place. However, recent amendments to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code now require Counties to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan. Dauphin County undertook this current planning initiative prior to the state mandate. PURPOSE The purpose of the Future Land Use Plan element is to provide a framework of land use patterns, by major categories, that best illustrates the desired future development characteristics of Dauphin County in keeping with the Plan's Statement of Goals and Objectives. It is intended that the application of these goals and objectives, through the Future Land Use Plan, will result in compatible land use relationships, appropriate distribution of community facilities, designation of acceptable residential and non-residential development areas, expansion of the County's employment and economic base, protection of existing agricultural activities and prime farm lands, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. 12-1 1 The Plan is not intended to restrict local governments to detailed site-specific land use designations and thereby impede local options to guide growth within individual municipal corporate I jurisdictions. In developing this Future Land Use Plan an attempt has been made to preserve the integrity of local zoning and incorporate it into the arrangement of land use patterns I illustrated on the Future Land Use Map. Because the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires local comprehensive plans to be "generally consistent" with the County Comprehensive Plan, and I not in strict accordance with it, flexibility in local land use planning is legislatively inherit. As a result, the fundamental success of what Dauphin County proposes in this Plan is greatly dependant upon its acceptability and implementation by local I officials. The Plan will therefore guide future land use in the County by influence, not be legal directive. Inter-governmental cooperation and a sincere commitment to planning at both the County I and local municipal levels are paramount. GROWTH MANAGEMENT I In order to effectively manage growth on a county-wide basis, local and County officials must cooperatively endeavor to direct the rate, location, and type of growth in accordance with a 1 comprehensive plan and mutually supportive implementing devices such as zoning, subdivision and land development regulations, official mapping, and capital improvements programming. Because I development initiatives must commonly originate from private developers, it is important that forums be utilized to integrate the desires and needs of both private and public sectors into the planning process. Examples of such public and private I organizational units among which coordination should be established include, Councils of Governments, Chambers of Commerce, Industrial and Commercial Development Corporations/Authorities, Housing and I Redevelopment Authorities, Community Action Agencies, Historical Societies, Conservancies, Home Owners Associations, Home Builders Associations, etc. While the County's role in growth management is I addressed through more specific recommendations located in the Plan Implementation Element of this Plan, it is worthy to note growth management as a prerequisite to successful achievement of the Future Land Use Plan. I LAND USE I The geographic arrangement of major land use classifications is illustrated on the Future Land Use Maps. The selected classifications: I Conservation Residential (low and medium density) Public/Semi-Public Commercial Agricultural Indus t r ia1 I The County has been divided into the following Plan Development Sections for planning purposes, the boundaries of which I are illustrated on the Future Land Use Map.

12-2 I I I

I Dauphin Dauphin Dauphin North Southeast Southwest Berrysburg Boro. Conewago Twp. Dauphin Boro. 1 Elizabethville Boro. Derry Twp. Highspire Boro. Gratz Boro. E. Hanover Twp. L. Paxton Twp. Halifax Boro. Hummelstown Boro. L. Swatara Twp. 1 Halifax Twp. Londonderry Twp . M. Paxton Twp. Jackson Twp. Royalton Boro. Middletown Boro. Jefferson Twp. South Hanover Twp. Paxtang Boro. m Lykens Boro. West Hanover Twp. Penbrook Boro. Lykens Twp. Rush Twp. Mifflin Twp. Harrisburg City Steelton Boro. Millersburg Boro. Susquehanna Twp. I Pillow Boro. Swatara Twp. Reed Tep. Upper Paxton Twp. I Washington Twp. Wayne Twp. . Wiconisco Twp. Williams Twp. H Williamstown Boro. I RESIDENTIAL LAND USE The Dauphin Southwest Plan Development Section is the most densely populated and developed portion of the County followed by Dauphin Southeast. The Dauphin North Section has experienced I considerably less development pressure. Those municipalities having experienced the greatest amount of residential development between 1984-1990, ranked in descending order of development activity by 1 Plan Development Section are: Dauphin North Dauphin Southeast Dauphin Southwest Halifax Twp. Derry Twp. Lower Paxton Twp. U. Paxton Twp. E. Hanover Twp. Susquehanna Twp. Washington Twp. W. Hanover Twp. Swatara Twp. Jackson Twp. S. Hanover Twp. Harrisburg City u Millersburg Boro. Londonderry Twp L. Swatara Twp. The residential land use classification is purposely general II in terms of specific residential unit designs and intensities to permit flexibility at the local level. Each municipality is required by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code to I provide for a variety of residential dwelling types encompassing all basic forms of housing; including single-family and two-family dwellings, a reasonable range of multi-family dwellings in various arrangements, mobile homes, and mobile home parks. The Housing II Plan Element of this Plan sets forth specific county-level housing goals and recommendations to achieve those goals. Local governments are encouraged to utilize these recommendations in fulfilling their obligation to provide for a variety of residential living opportunities.

I 12-3 1 1 The intensity of residential development is primarily dependent upon the provision of public sewer and water services. I Higher density development should therefore occur within such service areas; through "infilling" of vacant and undeveloped land, and in locations immediately adjacent to such to provide for the practicable and financially feasible extension of such services. I Residential development trends indicate continued high density development to predominantly occur within the municipalities adjacent to the City of Harrisburg. Similar development densities I are planned to continue, although in a somewhat limited fashion, in and around the Boroughs of Middletown, Highspire, Steelton, Penbrook, and Paxtang. For the purpose of preserving open space and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, local officials are 1 encouragedto incorporate residential cluster provisions into their zoning ordinances. Lower density, primarily single-family unit development, is projected to occur in the form of radial corridors 1 emanating outward from the Boroughs and within isolated nodes throughout the County. These radial corridors and isolated nodes reflect the preference of continued, but limited expansion of current development levels. Expansion of these areas is proposed I to be limited initially. However, as transportation improvements through the Dauphin Narrows occur throughout the decade and into the next century, northern Dauphin County will need to plan and I prepare for expected population increases. Aqricultural Land Use I Dauphin County has an abundance of prime farm land, with the most available land located within the northern valleys corridors running east to west and the southeastern planning section running 1 north to south, respectively. Farming remains ingrained in the rural lifestyle of the County and forms a viable portion of the County's economic base. The Bureau of Census estimates that the I County has lost one hundred-one (101) farms and approximately 11,130 acres of farmland between 1982 and 1987. It further estimates that about 30 percent of the County land area is devoted I to agricultural activities. The County therefore proposes that approximately one-third and largest land use classification in acres be devoted to agricultural use; with a strong recommendation that development limitations and alternative methods of I agricultural preservation be imposed by local officials. While zoning appears to be the most viable and accessible device to preserve agricultural land, the Pennsylvania Agricultural Security I Law places both the County and local units of government in a more effective position to protect such land through the creation of Agricultural Security Areas and financial assistance to acquire agricultural conservation easements. The County Board of I Commissioners has established a County Agricultural Preservation Board which will implement the County Agricultural Preservation Program. Presently, about one-third of the municipalities which I will utilize the program are actively involved in preserving prime agricultural lands in the County. The success of such an effort is dependent upon cooperative county and local efforts. In order to I more effectively avoid development encroachment into agricultural areas, local officials are encouraged to consider incorporating 12-4 transfer of development rights. provisions into their zoning and subdivision and land development ordinances. Conservation Land Use Conservation areas constitute the second largest future land use classification. These areas are comprised of such environmentally sensitive areas as flood plains, areas with slopes exceeding 15 percent, and large woodland areas. Flood plain areas are primarily those corridors following the Susquehanna River and its main tributaries; Conewago, Swatara, and Wiconisco Creeks. The intent, however, is to include all flood plains designated as within the Regulatory 100 Year Flood Plain by the Federal Flood Insurance Program. All designated wetlands are also included by reference as being within the conservation land use classification. More detailed investigation and identification is necessary for the mapping of wetland areas. Federal and State efforts are currently underway to provide this data. Three salient natural features of Dauphin County are Mahantango Mountain forming of the border with Northumberland County, the Susquehanna River forming borders with Cumberland, Perry, and York Counties, and the State Game Lands forming borders with Schulykill and Lebanon Counties. The large steep sloped areas associated with the mountain and State Game Lands and as well as the flood plain areas of the Susquehanna River are included for conservation and protection against development activities. Local governments are encouraged to incorporate steep-slope development standards, and provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas into their municipal land use and development ordinances. Municipalities having been officially identified as continuing designated flood hazard areas are required by the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act to adopt local floodplain management regulations which are in compliance with the Act and the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Dauphin County has incorporated floodplain management provisions into the Dauphin County Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. The Dauphin County Board of Commissioners has created a County Open Space and Environment Task Force. The Task Force has prepared a report that identifies related needs, preservation techinques, funding methods, goals and objectives, and policy /program recommendations to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and enhance recreation opportunities throughout the County. The content of that Report is endorsed and incorporated by reference into this Comprehensive Plan. Public/Semi-Public Land Uses This land use classification includes land areas within the County intended to support such activities and facilities as recreation, municipal services, education, public utility enterprises, federal and state installations, hospital, libraries, and other public or semi-public owned and maintained lands. It is

12-5 impractical to graphically depict and plan for the future expansion of all these types of land uses, therefore the Future Land Use Map I contains only those land uses of significant area. As the development process occurs throughout the County, it is reasonably expected that existing public/semi-public land areas and facilities will be expanded to support specific needs. More specific I narrative, statistics, and graphics on existing and proposed public/semi-public lands are contained in the Existing Community Facilities and Services Chapter and the Community Facilities Plan I Chapter of this plan document. Commercial Land Use I Commercial development activities and associated employment opportunities are most intensively located in the Dauphin Southwest Plan Development Section, followed by Dauphin Southeast and Dauphin I North Plan Development Sections, respectively. Those municipalities that have received the greatest number of commercial building permits from 1984-1990, ranked in descending order of I development activity by Plan Development Section are: Dauphin North Dauphin Southeast Dauphin Southwest I Upper Paxton Twp. Derry Twp. Susquehanna Twp. Washington Twp. Hummmelstown Boro. Lower Paxton Twp. Williams Twp. East Hanover Twp. Harrisburg City I Lykens Boro. West Hanover Twp. Swatara Twp. Reed Twp. Londonderry Twp. L. Swatara Twp. On a County-wide basis, those municipalities experiencing the I largest number of commercial subdivision or land development plat application proposals between 1988 and 1991, ranked in descending order are: I Lower Paxton Township Susquehanna Township I Swatara Township Derry Township West Hanover Township I By Plan Development Section, over the same period of time, Dauphin Southwest experienced the greatest amount of development pressure with a total of 227 plat applications, followed by Dauphin I Southeast with 73 plat applications, and Dauphin North with only 13 subdivision or land development plat applications. Statistics on commercial construction building permits issued between 1988 and 1990 reflect similar commercial development pressures by I municipality and Plan Development Section; with 148 construction permits issued in the Dauphin Southwest Section, 47 permits issued in the Dauphin Southeast Section, and only 11 issued in the Dauphin I North Section. Commercial development sites, both existing and proposed, are primarily located adjacent to the major transportation corridors of the County; with major transportation I corridors impacting the southeast and southwest segments of Route 22, Route 322/422, Route 81 , Route 39, Route 230, and Union 12-6 I I II II Deposit Road. The Future Land Use Map proposes continued development expansion in those areas of the County experiencing the greatest I amount of development pressure, with most future development being proposed to occur on undeveloped and partially developed land contiguous to existing sites. The pattern of radial commercial corridors established throughout the County has created major I traffic congestion and safety problems, and should therefore be limited in terms of incremental lot-by-lot infilling resulting in the proliferation of direct ingress and egress to the collector 1 roads they are adjacent to. Therefore, several major land areas have been proposed to receive commercial development at such locations that minor streets can be utilized to feed traffic to and from commercial concentrations and the collector roads servicing I the County. Commercial corridors along these roads are purposely limited in length, and separated by residential and agricultural land uses for the purpose of providing visual breaks in commercial I strip development, as well as, reducing the number of direct street access points producing a large number of motor vehicle turning movements. 1 For the purpose of providing localized commercial diversity and flexibility, specific types of commercial land uses and activities are not addressed in this Plan; thereby being preserved 0 as a local option to be expressed in municipal zoning ordinances. It is, however, strongly recommended that local zoning ordinances contain effective buffer provisions to protect residential areas I from the impacts of adjacent non-residential uses. Local officials are also encouraged to utilize planned residential development provisions to provide for commercial convenience and other compatible non-residential services at appropriate locations within I residential areas. The provision for such services could also be administered through special exceptions and/or conditional uses contained in the zoning ordinance. Caution must be taken so as to B select only those types of uses and apply effective standards that will prevent detrimental impacts on residential areas. Likewise, similar provisions for commercial agricultural I support activities are recommended to be included in local agricultural zoning districts. This will not only promote expansion of the County's commercial base, but provide for such I activities at locations convenient to farming activities. B Industrial Land Use Industrial development is most intensively located in the Dauphin Southwest and Dauphin Southeast Plan Development Sections, respectively. Similar development characteristics are reflected by P statistics on industrial construction permits issued between 1984 and 1990. Statistics on industrial construction permits between 1984 and 1990 place the Dauphin Southwest Plan Development Section I as the leader in actual construction of new industrial establishments with 29 permits issued, closely followed by the Dauphin Southeast Section with 24 permits issued, and finally I 12-7 I I Dauphin North Section with 15 permits issued. I Industrial sites, both existing and proposed are not concentrated along lengthy segments of collector road corridors, as is characteristic with commercial development in the County. They appear as isolated nodes of both small and large site sizes I throughout the County. The Future Land Use Map proposes continued development I expansion in those areas of the County experiencing the greatest amount of pressure; with most new development occurring on undeveloped and partially developed land contiguous to existing I sites. It appears that Steelton and Highspire Boroughs, home of a deteriorating Bethlehem Steel Corporation Plant will be a prime site for industrial redevelopment, while Swatara, Lower Swatara, and Derry Townships will be excellent sites for industrial I redevelopment and future industrial development. The County would like to first utilize existing and zoned industrial sites to revitalize industrial development in the County. The existence of I Harrisburg International Airport, The Pennsylvania State University affiliated Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, and Amp Incorporated will not only continue to sustain industrial development in the County, but will also spur growth to occur as expansion of their I facilities continues in the future. An attempt is made to establish industrial development within existing industrial zoning districts; where adequate transportation access is available and I proposed road improvement projects are scheduled; adjacent to existing rail corridors (where possible); adjacent to non- residential land uses to reduce the possibility of immediate I impacts on residential developments; and at locations currently receiving or proposed to receive public sewage and water services. For the purpose of providing localized industrial base I diversity and flexibility, specific types of industrial uses and activities are not proposed in this Plan; thereby being preserved as a local option to be expressed in municipal zoning ordinances. I It is strongly recommended, however, that local zoning ordinances contain effective buffer provisions to protect nearby residential areas from the impacts of industrial activities. Local officials are also encouraged to utilize cluster development provisions to I provide for open space and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Selected industrial uses could be permitted in other non- residential land use areas through special exception and/or I conditional use provisions in local zoning ordinances. Caution must be taken, however, to select only those types of uses and apply effective standards which will prevent detrimental land use I conflicts and transportation problems. In conclusion, the County will be reviewing the Comprehensive Plan annually to update and make adjustments as they merit. During I the review period, the County will consider the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study, the development of a transportation model now being conducted, the 743 Turnpike Interchange Study, the Tri-County I Regional Comprehensive Plan, and any other studies that come to our attention.

12-8 I I

1 I CHAPTER 13 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION The Transportation Basic Studies Element (Chapter 8) of this Comprehensive Plan provides an inventory of the County‘s existing transportation system. The Plan’s Future Land Use Element, as well I as other elements of the Plan, indicate that development will continue throughout the County, thus increasing demands on the County’s transportation system. In the more rural areas this I growth is expected to continue at a relatively slow pace. However, in the urbanizing areas were public sewer and water services are available development is expected to increase more rapidly and at greater densities. Mobility and access demands in these areas can I be adequately accommodated only if the transportation network servicing them is properly maintained and expanded. I Current highway related maintenance and safety needs, let alone existing and future capacity deficiencies, far exceed available funding capabilities. The transportation planning process, in and of itself, must continue to monitor traffic I volumes, identify system deficiencies, program projects for engineering and construction, and place a greater emphasis on how project needs can be funded. It should also be realized that I proper land use planning can help deal with system deficiencies, both now and in the future. I The Harrisburg Area has an ongoing and responsive transportation planning process in place. This process is coordinated through the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) which attempts to identify and prioritize system problems and I solutions. This is no easy task because problems abound on practically every major and minor arterial roadway in the Area. It is a difficult task to prioritize deficiencies and projects since I they often vary by type and scope. They normally belong to one or more of the following categories: safety, capacity, structural (maintenance), and community disruption. HATS is the federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Area. I The products of the HATS planning process are the main source of recommendations found in this Plan. The recommendations of this element provide a means of achieving the Plan’s Transportation I Goals and Objectives. I HIGHWAYS Functional Classification The Basic Studies Section and related maps describe the I ,functional classification system of roadways in Dauphin County as developed through HATS. HATS regularly updates its Functional Classification/Federal-aid System Maps and an update will occur I soon because of the 1990 Decennial Census of Population and Housing which will, no doubt, show an expanded urban boundary in the Harrisburg Urbanized Area. Since HATS will be updating its map in 8 13-1 I I the near future, no changes to the functional classification of roadways is currently recommended in this Plan. Changes to I functional classification that result from the HATS effort should be incorporated into this Plan. The County and municipalities should use the adopted HATS functional classification map in I conducting transportation planning, programming, and improvement activities. Desiqn Standards I PennDOT has developed a set of rural and urban design standards for local roads. These are contained in Publication 70, I "Guidelines for Design of Local Roads and Streets". The criteria should be used by the County and municipalities when designing and implementing roadway and bridge improvements. I Deficient Cartwav Widths As part of the development of this Plan, the cartway widths of I state highways in the County were analyzed. Exhibit 13-A shows the results of this analysis. It is recommended that PennDOT consider widening the cartways of these roads as they undergo restorations I and resurfacings. Hiqhwav and Bridqe Improvement Needs I The Basic Studies Section describes the Twelve Year Program process as well as the process utilized in identifying capacity, safety, and structural deficiencies . This Plan relies on these I processes, which result in adopted Twelve Year Programs (every other year) and annual HATS Transportation Improvement Program/Annual Elements (TIP/AE's) , for the identification of highway andbridge improvement needs. Exhibit 13-B contains a list 1 of highway and bridge projects that are contained on the Twelve Year Program (1990-2002), the TIP/AE or one of the four Commonwealth Bridge Bills. Recent municipal and HATS traffic and I transportation plans should be considered in updating the Twelve Year Program and TIP/AE. Recommendations I General

1. The County should continue and expand, as needed, its role in I transportat ion planning , programming and project implementation. This role, as identified and discussed in the Basic Studies Section, includes: 1) Operating the Dauphin I County Transportation Department and its paratransit services; 2) Maintaining/improving County bridges; 3) Partial funding of Capitol Area Transit's operating budget; 4) Planning/programming activities for the transit system and I federal-aid system highway improvements through involvement in HATS, and 5) County Planning Commission reviews/approvals of subdivision and land development plans and comments on I municipal zoning and subdivision ordinance proposals and amendments. I 13-2 I 2. The County should support, through HATS, the development of a I regional travel demand model in order to improve the effectiveness and objectivity of the transportation planning I process in the area. Hiqhways and Bridqes 1. The transportation planning process should place a greater I emphasis on how to fund needed improvements. At the local level, county officials should encourage intermunicipal cooperation and the "partnership" approach in funding needed I projects. The county should consider a' matching grant program, where the county matches municipal funds to implement needed highway projects, as has been initiated in Lancaster I County. The state should be encouraged to expand its funding of highway and bridge projects through expansion of existing revenue programs or development of new ones. The federal government should be encouraged to develop and implement a I responsive highway program that gives maximum flexibility to state and local governments now that the Interstate Highway I construction program is essentially complete. 2. Land use planning must be utilized in conjunction with adequate improvement funding in order to most effectively deal I with existing and future transportation system demands. 3. The HATS functional classification scheme for roadways should be used by the County and municipalities when conducting I transportation planning, programming and implementation activities. Periodic changes to the functional classification scheme should be made by HATS and incorporated into this Plan. I 4. PennDOT's design criteria for local roads should be incorporated into local ordinances and used in the design and I construction of local roadway and bridge improvements. 5. PennDOT should consider widening the cartways of state roadways listed in Exhibit 13-A, when they undergo 1 restorations or resurfacings. 6. Additional project recommendations not currently on the 12 Year Program, TIP/AE or a Bridge Bill should be considered by I HATS for programming in future updates of the Twelve Year Program and TIP/=. I 7. PennDOT's l'turnbackllprogram should be promoted as a means to better manage and maintain the highway system through the transfer of roads to municipalities that serve purely a local I function. I Public Transit 1. Continue to support the Dauphin County Transportation I Department and its paratransit services for the elderly, poor 13-3 I

and handicapped. It is imperative that the "quarter mile" regulation remain in effect for the Pennsylvania "Section 203" I Program. This rule requires all able-bodied senior citizens to use the fixed route bus services availab1.e to them when their origins and destinations are within a quarter mile of a CAT route. By requiring that this rule be followed, not only I does the ridership base on CAT remain stable, thus reducing the need for additional local furiding, but also the drain of dollars from the Pennsylvania Lottery Program is reduced. I Mitigating factors must be taken into consideration on a trip by trip basis to determine if paratransit service is required. I 2. Continue to support Capitol Area Transit (CAT) through the shared provision of needed operating assistance funding. 3. Promote Public transit as an alternative to automobile use. I In response to traffic congestion and increased air pollution, the County and local municipalities should examine public transit as an alternative to automobile use. If improved I service is desired, local funding support must be increased. With decreasing Federal funds, the money will have to come from local jurisdictions, agencies, and/or private groups committed to supporting public transit. I 4. Support studies on the feasibility of express services. This service, provided from regional park and ride facilities, I should be improved to provide a low cost, effective alternative to the use of single-occupant vehicles. 1 5. Support for transit studies in areas which currently lack service. Improved service to other areas in the County will only occur after a detailed transit feasibility study is performed. I 6. Continue implementation of necessary CAT route service adjustments. Small service adjustments are made almost every I year. Most are made in response to funding availability and performance evaluations made in the annual Short Range Transit Plan. No major route changes are currently being proposed, I however, all service is contingent upon the amount of funding CAT receives. Utilize private operators for charter services. Due to I Federal regulations enacted in 1987, charter service is almost exclusively available through private operators. Tax-exempt agencies would still qualify for charter service through CAT, I however, because of the administrative work involved in securing charter service, CAT has chosen not to pursue charter service as part of its operating program. 1 8. Support evaluation of inter-city bus service. 9. Assist in the coordination of paratransit services. I Paratransit vehicles are available to non-profit agencies through the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Section 13-4 I I 16(b) (2) Program. Application for such funding is made to I PennDOT, and is administered on a state-wide competitive basis. Vehicles are then either operated by the acquiring agency or leased to a local transportation provider to provide I service. A coordinative service plan should be establishedto prevent possible duplicative service among the transportation providers. The Dauphin County Transportation Department should play a major role in both the preparation and I implementation of such a plan. 10. Support the study of expanded rural transportation by i assessing current transportation services in the light of rural mobility needs. Evaluate both affordability and availability of services. I Rail and Aviation 1. Efforts to maintain and improve rail facilities and services I that serve intra-regional and inter-city travel should be supported. These services and facilities include AMTRACK and CONRAIL, the proposed high speed rail system in Pennsylvania, I and the possibility of commuter rail in the Harrisburg Area. 2. Efforts to improve the Region's air facilities should also be supported. Involvement in the Southcentral Pennsylvania 1 Airport Authority should continue as a means to evaluate the area's longer-term air facility needs. I I I I I I 1 I I 13-5 I Exhibit 13-A I

Source: PennDOT Roadway Management System - 1990

Notes: CarWays selected are roadways of 18 or 19 feet width with a maintenance functional classification of collector or higher and an AADT of 3000 or greater, and any roadway less than 18 feet in width With an AADT of greater than 1500.

Maintenance Functional Classification Codes: A=lnterstate, &Other Expressway/Primary Arterial, &Minor Arterial, D=Collector, E=Local Access, F=Ramp

AADT=Average Annual Daily Traffic (Volume); MFC=Maint Functional Classification; SRState Route (Number)

1 I n~m~mm~rnmrn~~~rn~~m~~~~

Exhibit 13-6 Planned Dauhpin County Highway and Bridge Projects on 12 Year Program, HATS Transportation Improvement Program/Annual Element or a Commonwealth Bridge Bill

Notas Ro~ccbPII) p0It.d by mmuc@~m Costs rn IU t.lml~wl& of dollara. AE=hual Elmmt. TIp=TnnsportPtloahpmvmmt Program, IZYP=I 990-2002 12 Year Program,BBILL=Bndgc BID

~BERRYSBURG& MIFFLIN IPA 225 I \MARKET ST. ISR 1008 IRESURFACE/UIDEN 2 BRIDGESllO34 (RE IC I (DAUPHIN (U.S. 22/322 (AT PA 225 I I (CONSTRUCT NEW OFF RAMP (25 IR I I DAUPHIN BORO./M. PAXTON (U.S. 22/322 I (DAUPHIN ISPEECEVILLE 14 LANE DIV-RELOCATION (450001 I i15t (DERRY ILINGLE AVE. IOVER CONRAIL I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1623 ICR I IlST i1 IDERRY/S. HANOVER (HANOVER ST. T 422 IOVER SWATARA CR. I I ]BRIDGE REPL. 11170 I I I 111 IDERRY/S. HANOVER )PA 39 IOVER SWATARA CR. I I lBRIDGE REHAB. 1476 I I )3RD !E. HANOVER ICARLSON RD. !OVER MANADA CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. (401 I I 11 (E. HANOVER IN. MEADOW LANE (OVER MANADA CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. I279 I I 11 IE. HANOVER ISANDBEACH BRIDGE IOVER MANADA CR. I I ]BRIDGE REPL. I235 I I 11 IBRIDGE REPL. (E. HANOVER ' lBOW CREEK BRIDGE IOVER BOW CREEK I I 1322 I ]HALIFAX TUP. IT 356 ARRON STRAW BR. IOVER POWELL CR. I 1 IBRIDGE REPL. I384 I IHAL IFAX TUP. IT 563, URICH SCHDOL,CBlO IOVER ARMSTRONG CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. I170 I IHAL IFAX TUP. (PA 225 I IPOWELLS CREEK IMATAMORAS (RESURFACE & WIDEN I747 IHALIFAX TUP. IPA 225 (OVER POWELL CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. I 11 IHARR I SBURG (17TH ST. I IPAXTON ST. ARSENAL BLVD. lRESTORATION 12nd IHARRISBURG 17TH ST. I IMACLAY ST. lDIVISION ST. I RESURFACE 12ND IHARRISBURG 17TH ST. I IHERR ST. IMACLAY ST. IRESURFACE 12nd IHARRISBURG (CALDER ST. (OVER PAXTON CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. I 11 I HARR ISBURG (CAMERON PKWY. #1 IOVER SPRING CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. I 11 I HARRISBURG (CAMERON PKWY. #2 IOVER SPRING CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. I 11 IHARRISBURG ICAMERON PKWY. #3 IOVER SPRING CR. I I /BRIDGE REPL. I 11 ]HARRISBURG ]CAMERON PKWY. #4 ]OVER SPRING CR. I 1 IBRIDGE REPL. 1 11 IHARRISBURG IMARKET ST. I 14TH ST. 125TH ST. RESTORATION 12nd (HARRISBURG IS. FRONT ST. CONNECTOR (SHIPOKE (PAXTON ST. IS. FRONT ST. 11 LANE RELDC. 12nd HARRISBURG ISYCAMORE ST. IOVER PAXTON CR. I 1 IBRIDGE REPL. IIST 11 IHARRISBURG ISYCAMORE ST. I ICAMERON ST. 113TH ST. IINTERS. IMPROVS. I153 I llST IHARRISBURG ITHIRD ST. I IFORSTER ST. ISENECAsi. IRESURFACE I203 I 12nd IHARRI SBURG IS. 19TH ST. IOVER SPRING CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. I634 I I 11 HARRISBURG IPAXTON ST. I 113TH ST. (19TH ST. (SIGNAL IMPRS. j 1295 I ( HARRI SBURG (STATE STREET BRIDGE I I I IBRIDGE DECK REHAB. 1351 CR I IHARRISBURG IHARVEY TAYLOR BRIDGE I I I ISECONDARY HANGER SUPPORTS I1963 I IHARRI SBURG IHERR ST. IOVER PAXTON CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1915 I IHARR ISBURG/SUSQUEHANNA ICAMERON STREET I IMACLAY I ELMERTON ]ADD CENT. LANE/SIGNALS 1875 RE IC IHBG/LEMOYNE \SOUTH BRIDGE I I I !SECONDARY HANGER SUPPORTS 13048 CI IHIGHSPIRE (PA 230 I lEISENHOWER ELM. IBROAD ST. (SIGNAL IMPR. I143 CR I (HIGHSPIRE/L. SUATARA IPA 230 (AT WHITEHOUSE LN. INTERS.( I (SIGNAL IMPR. I78 CR I lHUMMELSTOWN IDUKE ST. /OVER SWATARA CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. I1901 I Exhibit 13-8 Planned Dauhpin County Highway and Bridge Projects on 12 Year Program, HATS Transportation Improvement ProgradAnnual Element or a Commonwealth Bridge Bill

Nota: kojsb we %Red by dcipali~.CosrS arc in mOu$an& oFdoUarS; AE-Afmd Elsmm: Ttp-Tmptatim Impmvcmat Pm- I2YP-I 990-2002 12 Year Roogram; BBILL-Bridge Bill

I HUMMELSTOWN IHUMMELS FARM RD. I OVER CONRA I L I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1360 I I I 111 lHUMMELSTOWN/L.SUAT. IT 690, POWER PLANT # 32 !OVER SUATARA CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. 11970 I I I I1 IJEFFERSON IT 551, MOUNTAIN RD.,CB13 IOVER S. FORK-POUELLS CR. I I /BRIDGE REHAB. 1152 I I 13~~I IL. SUATARA lWHITEHOUSE LN. IOVER CONRAIL I I IBRIDGE REM/AT GRADE REPL.1500 I I I 11 I LONDONDERRY IBRINSER RD. IOVER AMTRAK I I IBRIDGE REPL. I LONDONDERRY IPA 341 !OVER IRON RUN TRIB. I I !BRIDGE REPL. ILOWER PAXTON IJONESTOWN RD. IOVER BEAVER CK. I I IBRIDGE REPL. ILOWER PAXTON IPEIFFERS LANE IOVER SPRING CK. I I (BRIDGE REPL. I LOWER PAXTON IRED TOP RD. IOVER BEAVER CK. TRIB. I I (BRIDGE REHAB. ILOWER PAXTON 11 83 (OVER VALLEY ROAD I I (BRIDGE DECK REPL. I LOWER PAXTON (I 83 I IDERRY STREET IUNION DEP. ROADlUlDEN TO 72 FT. ILOWER PAXTON INYES ROAD I IDEVONSHJRE RD. lJONESTOUN ROAD IRESURF, RECON & SHLDRS. ILOWER PAXTON IUNION DEPOSIT RD. IOVER NYE'S RUN I I IBRlDGE REPL. ILOWER SUATARA IPA 283 !AT N. UNION ST. I I IADD RAMPS I LOWER SUATARA 11 283 17377 BRIDGE OVER I 283 I I IBR IDGE REHAB. ILYKENS B/UICONISCO/UILLIA IUS209 I ~LEHRST. ISCHUYKILL CO. LIRESURFACE & SHOULDERS ILYKENS TUP. ICROSSROADS RD . IOVER TRIB. UICONISO CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. (LYKENS TUP. IDEEP CR. TRIB. BRIDGE IOVER DEEP CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. lMIDDLE PAXTON IT 304,RED HILL, CB 23 IOVER CLARKS CR. I I (BRIDGE REHAB. IMIDDLE PAXTON IT 686, SINGER LANE, CB 22lOVER STONY CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. IMIDDLE PAXTON ICLASTER BLVD. PA 225 IOVER CLARKS CR. I I ISRIDGE REPL. [MIDDLE PAXTON )PA 325 BRIDGE IOVER CLARKS CR. I I !BRIDGE REPL. IMIDDLE PAXTON /PA 443 IOVER FISHING CR. I I IBRlDGE REHAB. ]MIDDLE PAXTON ]PA 443 IOVER FISHING CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. IMIDDLE PAXTON IPA 443 IOVER FISHING CR. I I IBRIDGE DECK REHAB. (MIDDLE PAXTON IPA 443 IOVER FISHING CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. IMIDDLETOUN IUILSON ST. (OVER AMTRAK I I (BRIDGE REHAB. ~MIDDLETOUN IPA 230 [OVER SUATARA CR. I I [BRIDGE REPL. (MIDDLETOWN/ROYALTON (GRUBS ST. CO.ER. 14 (OVER SUATARA CK. I I (BRIDGE REHAB. ~MIFFLIN (T 474 SEAMAN BRIDGE (OVER MAHANTANGO CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. IPAXTANG/SUATARA(DERRY ST. I I PAXTANG AVE . IE. PARK DR. ISIGNAL IMPR. REED IT 547, SHOOP FARM, CB 28 IOVER POUELLS CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. 1 REED 1U.S. 11 I IPERRY LINE IPERRY LINE I RESTORAT ION REED 1U.S. 11/15 IOVER JUNIATA RIVER I ISECONDARY HANGER SUPPORTSi471 I I IIv IROYALTON ~BURDST. !OVER AMTRAK I IBRIDGE REPL. 11014 I I I 111 IS. HANOVER ISHETLAND DR. IOVER MANADA CR. I ]BRIDGE REPL. 1469 I I llST 1111 IS. HANOVER IHOERNERSTOUN RD. IOVER KELLOCK RUN S. OF STONE MILL RD. I (BRIDGE REPL. 1899 ICR I (1ST 111

=-mu Exhibit 13-8 Planned Dauhpin County Highway and Bridge Projects on 12 Year Program, HATS Transportation Improvement ProgradAnnual Element or a Commonwealth Bridge Bill

Nota: Rojka am madby dcipli~Cwtg am m thoupan& ofdollar+ AJZ=Atmud Elsmmt; TIP-TramportaamImprovamt Program 12YP=1990-2002 12 Year Program; BBILL-Bridge BIU

I MUN ICI PAL ITY I ROAD-NAME 1 LOCATION I LIMIT-FROM IL IM IT-TO IPROJ.-DESCR. I COST- ( AE-I T IPI 12YP I BB I LL +------+------+------+------+------+------'------+-----+-.-+---+----+----- /STEELTON [PA 230 I (FRANKLIN ST. ISWATARA ST. ISIGNAL IMPR. 1114 (CR I IlST I 1 SUQUEHANNA /LOWER PAXTON IL I NGLESTOWN ROAD I (U.S. 22/322 lLINGLESTOWN IADD LANE & SPOT IMPRS. (2065 (CR I I I ISUSQUEHANNA IPAXTON CHURCH RD. IOVER PAXTON CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1378 I I I I11 ISUSQUEHANNA IREICHERT RD. (OVER PAXTON CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1315 I I I I11 ISUSQUEHANNA IGEORGE WADE BRIDGE I I I lSECONDARY HANGER SUPPORTS15592 IC I llST IIV ISUSQUEHANNA IPROGRESS AVE. I IVALLEY RD. IKOHN RD. I ITERSECTION IMPRS. t1737 I I I'ST I ISWATARA IPARK DRIVE IUNDER CONRAIL I I IBRlDGE REPL. 12000 I I 13RD IIV I SUATARA 11 83 IOVER PKWY DR & SPRING CR. I I IBRlDGE REHAB. 11927 I I I IIV ISUATARA I E ISENHOWER BLVD . I ILINDLE RD. IHIGHLAND ST. ISIGNAL IMPR./CENT LT LN. 1642 ICR I IlST I ISWATARA !PA 441 HBG. ST. IOVER SPRING CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. I1200 I I I 11" I SUATARA 140TH ST. !OVER CONRAIL I I IBRIDGE REPL. 1884 I I I 111 ISWATARA/DERRY U.S. 322/422 !OVER SWATARA CR. I I IBRIDGE REHAB. (2216 IUPPER PAXTON RIFE BRIDGE, T 466, CB 35lOVER WICONISCO CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. (517 IUPPER PAXTON PA 147 IOVER MAHANTANGO CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. 11160 lUPPER PAXTON L. UICON. CR. BRIDGE IOVER LITTLE UICON. CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. I409 IVAR Ious I 81 I UMB. CO. .€BANON CO. (RESTORATION (37510 I VARIOUS I 83 I l9TH ST. 81 IWIDEN TO 72 FEET 140500 (W. HANOVER PA 443 IOVER FISHING CR. IBRIDGE DECK REHAB. I254 IWASHINGTON IHENNINGER FARM ERG. CB 4310VER WICONISCO CR. (BRIDGE REPL. IWASH I NGTON IMATTIS MILL BRIDGE IOVER UICONISCO CR. IBRIDGE REPL. 1271 I I I 111 I WASHI NGTON 1U.S. 209 (2 BRIDGES) IOVER WICONISCO CR. IBRIDGE REPL. 1915 IC I llST 111 WAYNE ICHURCH ST. IOVER POWELL CR. IBRIDGE REPL. 1316 I I l2ND 111 ~UAYNE lWAYNESVILLE RD 1-551 IOVER POUELLS CR. INEAR UAYNESVILLE I IBRIDGE REPL. I387 ICR I llST 1111 IUEST HANOVER IHERSHEY ROAD I 1U.S. 22 IS. HANOVER LINE IRESURFACE 1552 ICR I I I I VI CON Isco \ARCH STREET T 707 IOVER WICONISCO CR. I I (BRIDGE REPL. 1339 I I l3RD I Iu I LL I AMS !CREEK RD. (OVER UICON. CR. I I IBRIDGE REPL. #52 1346 1 I (1ST (I1 I

CHAPTER 14 COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Future Land Use Plan delineates various categories of land uses. Each of which is trying to add or benefit its region and the County as a whole. The Community Facilities Plan is intended to provide guidance and recommendations to local (private and public) and County officials in their responsibilities to provide ample recreation and services to all County residents. The need for many I of the facilities will be dependent on the types and density of development pressure. These factors will also be regulated by other items that determine services and facilities to be provided such as, population gathering, Fiscal resources, and the range of servicing facilities currently existing. The County and local officials have varied responsibilities to provide to County residents for service and facility needs. Local governments carry a large portion of these responsibilities including the following:

0 Direct implementation of community services and facilities.

0 Provisions of education responsibilities.

0 Provision of sewer and water services.

0 Police and fire service (Pennsylvania State Police also included). Solid waste planning is 'one of the responsibilities of the County governments. The County will also oversee many of the - finances and administration (discussion Chapter Ten (10)). Although vital to the residents health and welfare, the finances are generally included in Community Services. I PARKS AND RECREATION Dauphin County residents have ample recreation space available I to them. Chapter Nine (9) discusses the open recreation space and where each is located. A total of 75,500 acres or 23 percent of public parks and/or lands occur in Dauphin County. State lands occur frequently throughout the County as well as other inter- mittently spaced public and private parks. The Appalachian and Horse-Shoe Trails also cross Dauphin County for non-motorized use. The State holdings total just over 54,000 acres open to public use. The County has prepared a recreation plan (1974) and utilizes this plan for future goals. The governing body will use the plan to retain and increase the sufficient open and recreation space.' In order to establish an initial determination of park and recreation needs, recreation acreage per population guidelines of

14-1 the National Recreation and Park Association’have been applied to the 1980 U.S. Census population and the existing recreation inventory to reflect the general disposition of recreational opportunities fulfillment throughout the County. This data is 1 reflected in Table 14-1 which indicates recommended ranges of park and recreation acreage per municipality and Plan Development Section. 1 Using this generalized approach, the data in Table 14-1 indicates that ten (10) of the Forty (40) municipalities are within the recommended ranges. A few of the other municipalities are I likely to meet the criteria with the inclusion of School District grounds. This emphasizes the point that it is a combined effort between the local officials and servicing school districts to m provide community recreational services. County and/or regional development are the next level for recreational needs in the future. Sate and County governments have 1 the combined responsibility for recreation at this level. The County currently has a Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, developed in 1974. Due to its age, the rapid population expansion and developmental growth of Dauphin County an I update of the plan should be addressed in the near future. As proposed by this Plan the County currently operates three B county parks and is concurrently trying to acquire a fourth for approximately 800 acres. This figure is under the National Park and Recreational Association standards however, the County is I trying to ratify this by purchasing land as it comes available and is within budget constraints. The National Park and Recreation Association emphasizes that recreation planning and provisions of such facilities should not be accomplished by one governmental e agency. Parks at all levels Federal down to school district and private interest should all be considered in the supply of adequate recreational opportunities. The following is a list of basic guidelines defined by NRPA as evaluation techniques: \

0 Opportunities for All 0 Proper Distribution of Sites 0 Proper Legal Framework o Flexibility in Design 0 Resource Evaluation 0 Accessibility 0 Advance Acquisition 0 Quality of Site Planning 0 Citizen Involvement I 0 Demand Projections 0 Relationship with other Agencies 0 Defined Levels of 0 School Park Coordination Responsibility 0 Park and Recreational land I protection

1 The National Recreation and Park Association is the 1 nation’s largest independent non-profit public service organization advocating quality parks and recreation, and provides services to recreation and park professionals 1 and the general public. With headquarters in Metro- politan Washington D.C., it has five (5) regional service I centers, and fifty (50) state affiliates. 14-2 TABLE 14-1

Recreational Municipality Population (1) Existing (2) Standards (3) Berrysburg Boro. 376 1.0 2- 4 Conewago Twp. 2,832 1.5 18 - 28 Dauphin Boro. 845 - 5- '9 Derry Twp. 18,408 128.2 115 - 193 East Hanover Twp. 4,569 - 28 - 48 Elizabeth Boro. 1,467 7.0 9 - 15 Gratz Boro. 696 1.5 7- 8 Halifax Boro. 911 31.0 6 - 10 Halifax Twp. 3,449 - 21 - 36 Harrisburg City 62,376 400.0 327 - 550 Highspire Boro. 2,668 42.8 17 - 28 Hummelstown Boro. 3,981 7.6 25 - 42 Jackson Twp. 1,797 - 11 - 19 Jefferson Twp. 385 - 2- 4 Londonderry Twp. 4,926 222.0 31 - 52 Lower Paxton Twp. 39,162 153.0 245 - 411 Lower Swatara Twp. 7,072 22.6 44 - 74 Lykens Boro. 1,986 95.0 12 - 21 Lykens Twp. 1,238 - 8 - 13 Middle Paxton Twp. 5,129 - 32 - 53 Middletown Boro. 9,259 30.0 58 - 97 Mifflin Twp. 676 - 6- 7 Millersburg Boro. 2,729 20.0 18 - 28 Paxtang Boro. 1,599 2.5 10 - 17 Penbrook Boro. 2,791 - 18 - 28 Pillow Boro. 341 6.0 2- 4 Reed Twp. 259 - 1- 3 Royalton Boro. 1,120 - 7 - 12 Rush Twp. 201 - 1- 2 South Hanover Twp. 4,926 27.4 31 - 52 Steelton Boro. 5,152 5.0 32 - 54 Susquehanna Twp. 18,636 26.0 116 - 196 Swatata Twp. 19,691 42.0 123 - 206 Upper Paxton Twp. 3,680 - 23 - 39 Washington Twp. 1,816 11.0 11 - 19 Wayne Twp. 847 - 5- 9 West Hanover Twp. 6,125 3.0 38 - 64 Wiconisco Twp. 1,372 6.0 9 - 14 Williams Twp. 1,146 - 7 - 12 Williamstown Boro. 1,509 10.0 10 - 17 (1) U. S. Census 1990 (2) Tri-County Regional Planning Commission estimates (3) National Recreation and Park Association Recreation Guidelines

The policies and/or ordinances setforth in the Pennsylvania Recreation Plan and Pennsylyvania Municipalities Planning Code (1988 PA Act 170) should also be incorportated into such plans.

14-3 I

PROTECTIVE/EMERGENCY SERVICES Dauphin County‘s primary role of emergency service is to administrate and direct personnel training and maintenance of a public emergency response communication network. Dauphin County’s Emergency Management Agency coordinates almost all of these activities. This agency oversees all preparation of emergency plans including natural disasters such as floods, major fires and tornados, as well as, industrial accidents such as Three Mile Island and Bethlehem Steel. They also are the directive center for the County’s 911 police and fire emergency service. This computerized system is one of the largest assets the County has for immediate distribution of police or fire. Local municipalities have the responsibility for the implementation of police, ambulance, and/or fire services. Hospitals will also many times supplement the existing emergency response teams. Those municipalities without internal service have generally contracted with a local firm to provide service and medical assistance. Another recommendation particularly to the northern municipalities, is that they create regional forces to cover larger areas. These could include fire, ambulance, and police services. Pennsylvania State Police coverage is currently the only formed police protection by some municipalities and will continue to be in the near future. Municipalities that would like technical assistance on any of the previously mentioned recommendations can contact the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. SEWERAGE SERVICES Local governments are required by the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act to adopt a plan for sewage services (on-lot management districts and public sewage service districts) for areas within their jurisdiction. Such plans must be in compliance with the Act and implementing rules and regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. It is strongly recommended that all local governments within the County comply with these regulations and update plans as required. Coordination of regional municipal sewage service is also recommended where appropriate. Dauphin County is currently utilizing its 1971 Cumberland and Dauphin County Sewerage Plan. This Plan needs to be updated immediately. Work is scheduled to begin on this Plan this year and completion should be seen within the next couple of years. The New Sewage Plan will hopefully provide accurate guidelines for existing facilities as well as, predictions for the new century ahead of us. Those areas proposed for sewerage in years to come will be speculated areas based upon many alternatives including, but not limited to, Future Land Use predictions, current growth areas of both population and development, as well as, facilities and areas requiring treatment due to malfunctions. I 14-4 I 1

Some of the likely areas sewerage may be extended into, are the northern regions of Dauphin County, especially with the 1 potential completion of the four lane access of Rt‘s 22/322 and the region east of the Harrisburg suburbs, towards the Lebanon County region. Both of these areas are likely to receive sewerage because of increased development moving in that direction. Some parcels in I the northern developments of the County may be the recipients of public sewage, however, these areas could be small facilities developed only for the subdivision development. This should help E to meet DER requirements, as well as, further improvement of regional environmental quality. I As noted earlier, the Townships within the County must all soon, if not already completed, begin to evaluate their existing forms of sewage treatment, largely on-lot sewage systems and well testing (i.e. DER’S Act 537 Plan). This will help in reducing I groundwater contamination while allowing maximum use of the land. Map 14-1 details the existing sewage areas, as well as, areas that can be considered for proposed sewerage. I PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SERVICES Dauphin County has been utilizing its currently enacted Water I Supply Plan since 1969. It is as many other County-wide plans in desperate need of update. The older plan highlights many of the areas proposed for water service, however due to its date many B plans may have been either completed long ago or some may even have been deleted from proposed development. Therefore, there is a strong need for an updated version of the Water Supply Plan. e Development along the Susquehanna River, Fishing Creek, Stoney Creek, Charles Creek (Dehart Dam) and Swatara Creek has or will in the future, create a burden on water supply for the region. The d Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) has a Low Flow Water Management Plan concurrently being developed for the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. This plan will highlight amounts of water I use, with use being defined as water removed from these areas and not directly being replenished. Activities such as irrigation and thermal heat generation plants are examples of this theory. The report will cover all of Dauphin County. 1 Currently the County is served by eighteen large public water systems and sixteen smaller public systems. The remaining areas I are served by private/localized wells. The smaller systems are usually providing for mobile home parks, nursing homes, and occasionally an apartment complex. All systems, less private on- 1 lot wells, are required to be inspected regularly per health regulations set by DER and the Department of Health for contaminate levels. This will ensure safe drinking water for all regions where public water exists. Map 14-1 (to be developed) depicts where 1 public water service exists and where it is proposed for the future. 1 It is imperative that local and County officials work with local water suppliers cooperatively and develop programs that will 14-5 1 I expand and enhance the local water systems. Provisions designed to include such principles should be included when developing and updating local subdivision and land development ordinances; to include provisions requiring hydrologic studies on new on-lot wells to be used. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater management facilities are necessary to compensate for flooding and prevent surface water run off damage. The Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act requires Counties to prepare a plan of this nature for designated watersheds within the County. Local municipalities must in turn, adopt and enforce these regulations designed to implement the Plan. The designated watersheds for Dauphin County are as follows:

0 Paxton Creek 0 Wiconsico Creek 0 East Spring Creek 0 Mahantango Creek 0 West Spring Creek 0 Stoney Creek 0 Fishing Creek 0 Conewago Creek 0 Clarks Creek 0 Susquehanna River 0 Swatara Creek The Dauphin County Conservation District has been designated as the lead agency for the review and development of the Act 167 Stormwater Management Plans. In consultation with the Conservation District and Dauphin County Planning Commission, it has been determined that areas with development pressure (within 3-5 years) should recieve the highest priority for planning. These areas currently recieving such pressure are the Paxton Creek, Spring Creek West, Spring Creek East, and Swatara Creek designated basins. Within the next three to five years development pressure probably will be felt in the area North of Peters Mountain, designated as Susquehanna River Basin, which is drained by Powell and Armstrong Creeks. The remaining basins including Mahantango, Wiconsico, Clark, Stoney, Fishing, Lower Susquehanna, and Conewago watersheds are only predicting limited or moderate development and are therefore considered to be lower priority basins. With these schedules in mind a few problems would occur. The first is the Swatara Creek Basin and its size as designated. It covers approximately 440 square miles,”four counties and about thirty municipalities. Funding and intermunicipal cooperation on such a project is not likely for the near future. The inability to complete a plan for this basin would leave a large gap in the County Stormwater Management Plan. The second problem that arises in the high priority basins is the area North of Peters Mountain; Armstrong and Powells Creeks. These two basins are designated as the Susquehanna River Basin, which means a study undertaken for this region would also have to include the area in lower Dauphin County also. Again, this is not a practical approach for the countywide plan.

14-6 Given these two problems and the schedules planned, the Dauphin County Conservation District and Dauphin County Planning Commission are recommending the following actions be taken; The Swatara Creek Basin be redesignated into three separate watersheds, Beaver, Manada, and Bow Creeks. The remaining portion of the Swatara Creek Basin could then be completed once more funding is available and the other high priority basins have been completed. The two watersheds of Armstrong and Powell Creeks should be separated from the Susquehanna River Basin and approached as individual studies. With this course of action in mind the following would be the prioritized list of watersheds to be completed for Dauphin County: 1. Paxton Creek (complete) 2. Spring Creek West (in progress) 3. Spring Creek East 4. Beaver Creek 5. Manada Creek 6. Bow Creek 7. Armstrong Creek a. Powell Creek 9. Conewago Creek 10. Wiconsico Creek 11. Mahantango Creek 12. Fishing Creek 13. Clarks Creek 14. Stoney Creek 15. Lower Susquehanna 16. Remainder of Swatara

Designation of watersheds within Dauphin County in this manner would allow the Conservation District to proceed with Act 167 planning in the basins where it is most needed without unnecessary and avoidable delay. Stormwater planning of this kind should be accomplished before significant development occurs and problems arise. By redesignating the basins into this configuration, those areas that are expected to recieve the most development and have the greatest need for immediate planning will be completed in a timely fashion and order.

14-7 1

I CHAPTER 15 HOUSING PLAN 1 The most critical aspect of a housing plan is the strategy for improving the condition and supply of housing in the County. Housing is perhaps the most significant physical resource in a I community and represents a large financial and emotional investment by a family. The primary objectives of a housing program are to improve and protect the status of existing dwellings, assure stable future housing development, and provide assurances that a variety 1 types of housing will be available for all age groups and income levels. I LOCATION OF HOUSING A crucial factor in the 1ocat.ion of housing is the natural characteristics of the area and the suitability of the land for 1 development. The purpose of this criteria is to determine what land should be protected from development. The factors which are I considered as restrictive for building purposes are: 1. Developed Land: Since existing development pre-empts new i development. 2. Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or sreater: Since they present severe constraints on construction of all types, and I can cause damage and erosion.problems. 3 - Prime AQriCUltUral Land: Since first and second class farmland, defined .by the Soil Conservation Service, is I accepted as an important natural resource. 4. Floodplain or Marshland: Since these land areas present I sensitive ecological conditions easily damaged by development. 5. Existins Public Land (federal, state, county, and municipal): Since this is accepted as an important public resource. These factors identify land which should be restricted for construction of residential development. The amount of such land should determine the remaining areas suitable for residential construction as shown on the Future Land Use Map. HOUSING ACTIVITY Since sufficiently comprehensive and accurate data is not available, it makes it difficult to provide reliable statements about recent trends. It is likely that in certain areas of the County and for groups within the population (the poor, racial, minorities, and the aged) housing conditions may not be improving at all or may be declining. The most consistent data available is the building permit information compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.

15-1 Tables 15-1 and 15-2 indicate the total number of units and the dollar value of residential building permits issued in the County during the time period 1980 and 1989. In 1982 a total of 502 residential dwelling units allowed by building permit were constructed and in 1986, 1 ,765 residential dwelling units were allowed by building permit, an increase of 252 percent. The total dollar value of these permits increased 338 percent between 1980 and 1988 from approximately 20.5 million to 89.9 million in 1988. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-six was the peak year of residential building activity, with 1,765 new units permitted, while 1988 saw the highest dollar value figure for residential construction in a single year (89.9 million). The 1987 figures appear to show a leveling off of the trend with the total number of new units declining and the building permit values only increasing slightly. However, housing building activity remained high in both 1988 and 1989 and only the recession of 1990 and early 1991 has temporarily slowed down housing activity in the County. With an expected recovery imminent, the activity apparent throughout the 1980's should to some degree reappear during the 1990's in Dauphin County. A land use inventory also' gives information by residential type. The most current breakdown of existing residential land use in Dauphin County was completed in 1981 (See Table 15-3). At that time, a total of 70,173 acres, or 18.49 percent of all land in the County, was used for residential purposes. Out of the total acres, 66,998 or approximately 95 percent of all residential, was used for single family detached dwellings. An updated land use survey would be needed to show whether the percentage of land in the County for residences has increased, as well as what the impact of more residential (and other type) development has been on agricultural or other undeveloped land.

TABLE 15-1 NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1980 - 1989 Dwellinq Tvpe 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Single Family 497 382 355 670 737 788 1200 1343 1238 ' 1080 Two Family 22 6 4 4 38 10 8 16 10 2 Three and Four Family 8 18 0 18 43 42 115 8 15 4 Five or More 33 146 143 150 41 6 128 442 61 169 21 Total New Units 560 552 502 842 1234 973 1765 1428 1432 1107

"The Single Family" category includes detached dwellings, ' plus any attached dwelling of two or more, which meet both of the following criteria: 1- have a ground-to-roof party wall, and

15-2 2. have separate utility metering. Any two or more family dwellings which do not have a ground-to-roof party wall, and/or have common utility metering, are included in the Two family, Three and Four family or Five or more family categories. .. d SOURCE: United States Bureau of the Census, Construction Statistics Division, Summer 1990

TABLE 15-2 VALUE of NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS DAUPHIN COUNTY 1980 - 1989 Dwellinq Type 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Single Family 19.294 16.00 16.276 29.344 34.770 39.210 66.500 79.358 04.459 83.373 Two Family 0.451 0.113 0.072 0.063 0.453 0.509 0.323 0.575 0.279 0.055 Three and Four Family 0.194 0.649 0.00 0.764 2.414 1.356 3.914 0.289 0.604 0.119 Five or More 0.502 2.967 4.309 5.674 1.047 4.628 7.760 2.147 4.430 0.285 County Totals 20.521 20.529 20.737 35.404 39.404 45.703 78.497 02.369 89.052 03.032

Figures indicate value of building as indicated on building permits. This usually includes material and labor, not including cost of land, overhead, etc. Figures may vary by permit issuing place. Data is adjusted for information not reported based on historical trends. Dollar values are rounded. The "Single Family" category includes detached units, plus any attached units which meet both of the following cri.teria: 1. have a ground-to-roof party wall, and 2. have separate utility metering. SOURCE: United States Bureau of the Census, Construction Statistics Division, Summer 1990

Another indicator of housing activity is the number of home sales within a given area. Table 15-4 shows the total number of residential sales which occurred in each municipality, the three Plan Development Sections, and the County from 1986-1990. County-wide, the number of home sales remained fairly constant over the time period. The number of home sales in the County peaked in 1986 at 3,624, corresponding with the peak in new home building permit activity in the same year.

15-3 TABLE 15-3

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DAUPHIN COUNTY 198 1

I# DWELLING UNITS # PARCELS LAND USE TOTAL PERCENT MARKET MARKET IN CLASSIFICATION ACRES IN OF TOTAL VALUE VALUE PRIMARY SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION ACRES LAND BUILDINGS USE USE (IN MILLIONS OF $) Single Family Detached 66,998 17.68 241,762,184 943,231,152 44,256 507 44,617

Single FamiIy Semi-Detached 748 0.19 14,589,408 91,562,344 9,827 59 9,458

Single Family Attached 420 0.1 1 11,837,556 84,219,064 10,558 302 8,572

Duplex 255 0.06 9,163,144 31,527,716 3,545 71 1,779

Multi-Family 879 0.23 25,164,088 132,917,532 16,429 90 1 1,922

Mobile Home 507 0.13 1,547,024 2,507,016 393 32 404

Mobile Home PWkS 366 0.09 671,612 4,951,132 1,449 356 56

2LASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS:

SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED: A building used by one (1) family, having only one (1) dwelling unit and having two (2) side yards. SINGLE FAMILY. SEMI-DETACHED: A dwelling used by one (1) family, having one (1) side yard, one (1) party wall common with another building. . SINGLE FAMILY, A'ITACHED: A dwlling used for one (1) family and having two (2) party walls in common with other buildings (such as row house or townshouse). XJPLEX A building used by two (2) families, with one (1) dwelling unit arranged over the other, and having two (2) side yards. WLTI-FAMILY: A building used by three (3) or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking, including apartment houses.

iOURCE TCRPC 1981 TABLE 15-4 NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL SALES* BY MUNICIPALITY DAUPHIN COUNTY 1986-1 990 Municipality

DAUPHIN NORTH 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Berrysburg Boro. 2 2 1 3 3 Elizabeth Boro. 23 14 20 12 23 Gratz Boro. 3 5 5 4 3 Halifax Boro. 16 17 10 11 10 Halifax Twp. 30 38 30 28 23 Jackson Twp. 7 13 14 6 9 Jefferson Twp. 4 3 4 3 1 Lykens Boro. 24 16 22 22 20 Lykens Twp. 10 6 4 7 6 Mifflin Twp. 3 1 6 3 2 Millersburg Boro. 39 38 39 26 31 Pillow Boro. 3 6 1 4 2 Upper Paxton Twp. 31 37 34 33 18 Washington Twp. 9 6 18 16 16 Wayne Twp. 3 5 5 6 9 DAUPHIN NORTH TOTAL 207 207 21 3 184 176 DAUPHIN SOUTHEAST Conewago Twp. 40 34 23 32 23 Derry Twp. 344 367 421 422 364 E. Hanover Twp. 44 46 45 38 32 Humelstown Boro. 66 49 52 49 40 Londonderry Twp. 42 46 35 29 42 S. Hanover Twp. 71 66 67 60 53 W. Hanover Twp. 101 71 68 60 60 DAUPHIN SOUTHEAST TOTAL 708 609 71 1 690 614

Harrisburg City 841 790 71 1 67 1 598 I DAUPHIN SOUTHWEST Dauphin Boro. 11 13 11 9 12 Highspire Boro. 41 39 43 46 23 1 L. Paxton Twp. 588 638 598 645 601 L. Swatara Twp. 102 106 91 118 84 M. Paxton Twp. 53 70 43 60 51 I Middletown Boro. 121 107 101 105 96 Paxtang Boro. 39 32 25 22 28 Penbrook Boro. 64 57 49 61 51 Royalton Boro. 10 11 7 11 11 I Steelton Boro. 89 64 70 92 82 Susquehanna Twp. 391 41 1 361 328 31 9 Swatata Twp. 359 356 31 7 303 276 1 DAUPHIN SOUTHWEST TOTAL 1,868 1 ,904 1,716 1 800 1 634 COUNTY TOTAL 3,624 3,580 3,351 3,345 3,022 * Includes sales of both new and existing homes SOURCE: State Tax Equalization Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I Five municipalities did not report data. 15-5 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The National Level Owning a home is part of the American dream, and decent housing in a suitable living environment is considered to be fundamental value of our society. Unfortunately, being able to find safe and decent housing at an affordable cost is becoming increasingly difficult for many Americans. While the majority of American homeowners are well-housed and benefits from significant equity in their homes, the burden of rising housing costs has fallen disportionately upon young, first time home buyers and low/ moderate income households. Selected housing statistics illustrate the affordability problem. The national home ownership is at its lowest level in fifteen (15) years, despite record levels of housing production. For households aged 25 to 29, the home ownership rate dropped from 43.3 percent in 1980 to 35.9 percent in 1987. Similar sharp declines were experienced by households aged 30-39. Historically high home owner costs, coupled with declines in real income for these groups, have kept more of these young families in rental units, driving up the cost of rental housing. The effect of higher rental costs is felt most acutely by low income renter households, who already pay too large a share of their income for rent. In addition, there has been a long-term increase in the number of low income households, in part due to the fact that these households have faced declining real incomes. High rents imparticularly impact the growing number of single parent households, and also contribute to the rise in homelessness. Meanwhile, the supply of low cost housing‘has dropped. More rental units are being lost to abandonment or are upgraded for higher income tenants. Changes in the federal tax laws have resulted in a drop in construction of rental housing units. In addition, federal funding of low income housing has dropped dramatically in recent years. Since 1981, federal housing subsidies for low/moderate income households have been reduced by 70-75 percent.’ The Local Level Insufficient data exists to completely analyze housing affordability at the County or sub-county level. Translating the national figures to the local level is difficult. Traditionally average housing prices in the Tri-County area including Dauphin County are lower than the national average. However, similar to the national trend, .if housing prices increase faster than incomes,

3 National Statistics are quoted from: The State of the Nation’s Housinq 1988. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.

15-6 the housing affordability gap widens, especially for first time home buyers and low/moderate income households. The issue of housing affordability is especially urgent in ‘I Dauphin County. If the number of housing units built does not keep up with population increases anticipated (County population is projsc-ted to increase by 6.7 percent between 1980 and 2010) , 1 housing prices will rise faster than incomes, resulting in a negative impact on the healthy economic growth of the recent past. Sustaining the growth will become more difficult as prices rise and housing becomes financially out of reach of many in the County’s I work force. One indicator of housing affordability is the average selling I price of the homes within the area. Table 15-5 lists the average selling price by municipality and Plan Development Section (Dauphin North, Southeast, and Southwest) during 1986-1990, the time period I for which comparable data is available. This table is based upon figures received by the State Tax Equalization Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I It- should be noted that this data reflects selling activity during highly active market years of an economic recovery period. Also, the figures for a particular year can be highly influenced by 8 a number of factors, such as a small number of residential sales which result in average prices that do not accurately reflect prevailing prices, Qr an unusually high or low selling price which heavily influences the average figure. See Table 15-4 to compare I the number of housing sales by municipality. Highlighting the information shown on the Table, we find that I the average selling price for the County increased approximately 36 percent over the five year time period, from $51,455 in 1986 to 70,110 in 1990. The municipalities with the greatest percentage c increases in selling price were: Berrysburg Borough, Wayne Township, Lower Paxton Township, South Hanover Township, Jackson Township, Derry Township, and Washington Township. I The data at the Plan Development Section level shows that the Dauphin Southeast consistently shows the highest average selling price. The Dauphin North region showed the greatest percentage I increase in selling price over the time period (50.0 percent) . The higher average prices in the southeast and southwest regions are balanced by the lower prices in the northern region, where demand and housing activity are lower, resulting in a more moderate I County-wide average. 1 I I I 15-7 TABLE 15-5 AVERAGE PRICE OF RESIDENTIAL SALES* BY MUNICIPALITY DAUPHIN COUNTY 1986-1 990 Municipality DAUPHIN NORTH 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Berrysburg Boro. $10,500 $29 ,869 $55 , 000 $27 ,500 $34 ,833 Elizabeth Boro. 35,010 35 ,285 44,017 37 , 808 52 , 534 Gratz Boro. 26 , 333 29,400 23 ,000 34,250 38 ,233 Halifax Boro. 41 ,878 31,488 45 , 020 37 ,020 40 , 390 Halifax Twp. 54 ,771 62 ,526 51,846 74 ,878 72 ,821 Jackson Twp. 51 , 500 41 ,034 62,557 68 , 557 77,116 Jefferson Twp. 32 ,750 26 ,033 63 ,300 48 , 966 115,000 Lykens Boro. 21 ,954 32,156 28,622 30,304 31,682 Lykens Twp. 37 ,750 38,910 55,125 51,785 34 , 041 Mifflin Twp. 38 ,966 27,100 49,516 47 ,833 55 ,000 Millersburg Boro. 32,951 34,697 38,317 39,515 49 ,722 Pillow Boro. 24 , 833 19,833 9,500 28 , 500 27 ,250 Upper Paxton Twp. 56 ,662 42,170 55 ,472 57 , 359 73 ,997 Washington Twp. 49,500 48 ,066 45 ,630 65,587 71 ,819 Wayne Twp. 50 , 666 64 ,360 48 ,360 79 ,266 75 , 666 DAUPHIN NORTH AVERAGE 37,773 37,528 48,294 4a ,609 56 ,674 DAUPHIN SOUTHEAST Conewago Twp. $92 ,362 $99 , 077 $1 21 ,473 $1 45,185 $1 23 ,008 Derry Twp. 93,051 101,212 109,040 117,291 133,706 E. Hanover Twp. 74 ,235 99 ,836 97,152 95 ,601 95,157 Humelstown Boro. 63 ,683 56,134 55 ,756 69,737 70,318 Londonderry Twp. 58 , 278 58 ,290 70 ,602 69 ,682 77,314 S. Hanover Twp. 87 , 520 108 , 51 9 103 ,880 117,134 128 , 480 W. Hanover Twp. 69,141 72,665 79 ,473 84 ,306 84 , 578 DAUPHIN SOUTHEAST AVG. $76 ,a96 $a5,105 $91 ,054 $99, a48 $1 01 ,794

Harrisburg City $40 ,034 $30 ,347 $31 ,928 $32 ,604 $34 , 191 DAUPHIN SOUTHWEST Dauphin Boro. $63 ,763 $42,761 $58,563 $58 ,922 $75,591 Highspire Boro. 44 ,686 46,815 46 ,394 54 , 997 59,769 L. Paxton Twp. 73 ,320 80,175 89,414 100,711 108,005 L. Swatara Twp. 61,736 63 ,508 77 ,046 82,618 89 ,098 M. Paxton Twp. 69,668 77,351 78,576 92 ,463 89,016 Middletown Boro. 47 , 945 50 ,459 53 ,227 55 ,298 59 , 559 Paxtang Boro. 53 ,038 60,741 63 , 088 63 ,659 76 ,903 Penbrook Boro. 47,550 43 ,237 54 ,900 58 ,666 52 ,680 Royalton Boro. 28 ,370 38 ,290 25,142 65 ,390 44 ,636 Steelton Boro. 32,173 33,130 36 ,493 38 , 960 36 , 864 Susquehanna Twp. 71,600 74 , 494 81,222 90 ,889 89 , 533 Swatata Twp. 62,915 66 ,881 72 , 821 75 ,379 77 , 547 DAUPHIN SOUTHWEST AVG. 54 ,730 56 ,487 61,407 69, a29 71,600 COUNTY TOTAL 51,455 53,339 59,471 65,675 70,110 * Includes sales of both new and existing homes SOURCE: State Tax Equialization Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Five municipalities did not report data.

15-8 Data at the housing market level is difficult to obtain, but is very useful in planning, considering that housing selling activity tends to occur within distinct market areas, as opposed to municipalities only. According to the Central Penn Multi-List, Inc., the average selling price of homes within northern Dauphin County is $104,926, $45,947 in the City of Harrisburg, $99,011 in eastern Dauphin County, and $84,341 in southern Dauphin County (as of the week of November 7, 1990). [Note: these figures are based on homes sold through Central Penn Multi-List, Inc. and therefore represent only those homes listed with the Multi-List Service.] A 1989 study of Housing/Shelter needs in the Tri-County Region4 surveyed the need for new development within the housing industry according to shelter providers and local agencies who are part of the shelter committee network. Those organizations surveyed listed the lack of low-income housing as the greatest need for new development in the community. It is implied in the report that low-cost housing must be made available, or the gap will widen between the have and have nots as the housing prices continue to rise while the area grows and more people move to the area. According to data provided by the 1980 Census Summary Tape 3, for the State of Pennsylvania, almost 41 percent of all persons in Dauphin County had incomes below low (less than 50 percent of the median) or moderate (less than 80 percent of the median) income in 1979, or a total of 22,629 families. The limited number of subsidized housing units in the County (4,56215 causes many of these families to pay a disportionately large share of their monthly income toward rent and utilities. One obstacle to affordable housing is restrictive local regulation, including zoning and subivision/land development ordinances, which increase development costs and eventually, housing prices. This impact can be reduced by revising regulations to minimize development costs to the greatest extent possible, allow for innovative design, and provide for a wide varitey of housing types and densities in appropriate locations. HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS Decent, safe and sanitary housing which is in suitable living surroundings is necessary for every individual in Dauphin County. This includes a suitable number and mix of housing units for all income and social groups which should be provided in a variety of locations throughout the County. The following are recommendations to be pursued if Dauphin County is to meet its housing goals:

4 Report on the 1989 Tri-County Housins/Shelter Survey. The Shelter Committee of the County of Dauphin, City of Harrisburg and the United Way of the Central Region. 5 Dauphin County Housing Authority, 1991. 15-9 I'

1. A sufficient amount of housing at appropriate costs could be provided to accommodate the anticipated population growth. m 2. A majority of the new housing units should be-constructedby the private sector. I 3. The public sector should continue to make investments in infrastructure, such as sewers, in areas recommended for residential development. 1 4. Future higher density residential development should be limited to those areas capable of being serviced with public I sewerage and water systems. Concentration of development along public sewer and water lines makes more efficient use of these facilities, while lessening development pressure on c outlying areas currently lacking these facilities. 5. Land use and development regulations in areas recommended for residential in this plan should provide for a variety of I housing types (including mobile homes) at varying price ranges. Increased opportunities for construction of townhouses and apartments, and consideration of density I bonuses as an incentive to the developer, should be encouraged in areas appropriate for higher density development. Such regulations will also have the effect of promoting the development of more affordable housing. 1 6. Housing alternatives should complement community growth, be so located as to provide convenient access to employment centers 1 and shopping facilities, and be responsive to energy conservation concerns. I 7. Housing should be coordinated and compatible with other aspects of the community such as transportation, community facilities and services, and the natural environment. I a. Development regulations which allow for more flexible application of ordinance standards should be encouraged. For example, residential cluster development allows changes in I conventional lot requirements and g;oups units more ciosely together on the most buildable portion of the site, leaving more area in open space. The resulting net density remains 1 nearly the same as in conventional development, yet the layout is more efficient and development, yet the layout is more efficient and development costs are lower. I 9. The adoption of codes and ordinances to regulate the minimum acceptable conditions of use, construction, location, additions and alternatives, repair, and maintenance of I properties should be considered by local municipalities, as applicable. Examples could include building, housing, mechanical and electrical, fire prevention, plumbing, and 1 existing structure codes, as well or zoning ordinances and subdivision/land development regulations. It is recommended that all municipalities in the County consider adopting a 1 15-1 0 I zoning and a subdivision/land development ordinance, a BOCA or other basic building code and a one and two family dwelling code. Within boroughs, a more complete housing code should be considered. These regulations must be properly enforced to be effective. A code enforcement officer with proper training could administer some or all of these codes. Some municipalities may consider appointing a joint code enforcement officer to share their cost. The County should continue to provide assistance to local. municipalities in reviewing their applicable regulations (zoning, subdivision/land development, building and/or other codes) to achieve the results outlined in Recommendations 5, 8, and 9. 10, An emphasis should be placed on the conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing in the older areas of the County, especially the boroughs. Such efforts will promote economic reinvestment and encourage a social and economic mixture of residents within these areas. Rehabilitation helps maintain a healthy housing market while preserving the area’s architectural heritage and providing more choice among housing types. 11. The County should continue, and increase, its data gathering and monitoring, to better identify housing trends and plan for the future. Such information should include: - the number, type and value of building permits; - the number and type of new dwelling units; - new residential construction costs; - market value of new single family housing starts, and - number of subdivision plats submitted and status (reviewed, recorded, etc.). Similar information for commercial and industrial development should also be recorded. This information should be compiled in the County Planning Commission’s Annual Report and selectively mapped. Follow up studies should be done as needed. Existing studies should be updated as data becomes available (for example, the 1990 Census) .

12 A County-wide housing needs assessment should be conducted to identify housing needs and target improvement areas. Information should be provided at the level of the housing market area, as this information is more useful to the County 15-1 1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority than county or municipal- level data for this purpose. In conjunction with a housing needs assessment, the County should support the recommendation of many Dauphin County agencies that a coalition on affordable housing be established to identify steps that can be taken to increase the availability of affordable housing to County residents. 13- The County should promote the formation of nonprofit, community-based Housing Development Corporations to construct/rehabilitate multi-family housing. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority should be the County’s lead agency to coordinate this effort. 14. The County should encourage the development of mixed housing designed to meet the special needs of the elderly and handicapped, and promote the availability of group homes for the mentally, physically and developmentally disabled within residential districts. Allowing for a group home by special exception or conditional use in the local zoning ordinance, with the development of criteria which must be met for its establishment and operation, will assure that the group home is a compatible residential use. For example, licensing by appropriate federal and state agencies, supervision of residents, a minimum separation distance between group homes, an annual inspection, and compliance with local building, housing, health, fire and safety regulations may be required. Such provisions will help to successfully integrate the group home into the community, while providing greater residential opportunities for County residents who require assistance in daily living. 15. Establish fair housing commissions/committees at municipal level. Local fair housing committees could be charged with reviewing local ordinances and developing recommendations to advance fair housing opportunities in their township or borough. They could also be charged with the local monitoring of the fair housing practices of housing developers, realtors and rental property owners.

15-1 2 CHAPTER 16 PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION County government in Pennsylvania operates within a limited scope of plan implementation authority because of the autonomous nature of the local governments comprising it. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) sets forth the Commonwealth's directive for planning, with County and local governments adopting plans and implementing regulations and programs that are within their respectively assigned authorities. County governments are required by law to adopt a comprehensive plan, while local municipalities may do so at their option. A unique feature of the Pennsylvania MPC is the advisory and recommendatory role the County plays in the plan preparation and implementation process at the local municipal level. The County, therefore, effectuates planning throughout its jurisdiction principally by influence and persuasion, rather than by directive. This position of limited County authority is clearly defined by a provision of the MPC which states that municipal comprehensive plans shall be generally consistent with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan. It is further reinforced by provisions that authorize local zoning and subdivision and land development ordinances to act as a repeal protanto to the jurisdiction of any similarly adopted ordinance by the County. The programs and plans of autonomous local governments are in many cases unilateral, and potentially or actually conflicting. Under the current scope of planning authority, the major effort in County plan implementation must be to devise a means to assure intergovernmental cooperation, coordinate functional and comprehensive planning among the various levels of government, and integrate planning and programming within the budgetary and legislative processes. In order to be effective and fulfill its purpose, the County Comprehensive Plan should function as an integrating force for local municipal plans. Successful plan implementation also requires that government and the private sector have reasonably similar views on future development of the County. Because local officials are lay citizens elected or appointed to office, they need professional guidance on a consistent basis. The County Planning Commission is in a position to provide this guidance. The County will certainly benefit by taking the opportunity to assist local officials in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive planning program. The County Comprehensive Plan can provide the instrument local officials need to pattern their municipal planning efforts after in a county-wide, coordinated, and uniform manner. The plan can also be helpful to the County operating agencies and line departments by providing the essential data and information which are needed in their own functional planning and implementation activities, and by making them aware of the governing body's policies on related community development matters 16-1 which might fall within the realm of their functions. In particular the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, Solid Waste Authority, Transportation Department, Conservation District, County Engineer, Tax Assessment Office, and the County Planning Commission, play mutually supporting roles in both maintenance and implementation of the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission should look to these agencies to provide much of the basic data required in comprehensive plan maintenance and monitoring. Other agencies and departments in turn, should look to the Planning Commission for some of their specific data needs. Furthermore, everyone stands to gain in the long run from being able to fit their goals, objectives, and plans into the overall framework of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. General and functional (Department specific) plans that grow out of the knowledge and experience of the various County departments and agencies are preferred, they will be much more acceptable to the parties at interest and therefore most successful when implemented. Plan administration and implementation, therefore, involves a variety of supporting activities. The most important aspect of which is the sincere commitment of County and local officials to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in their respective comprehensive plans in a mutually supportive manner. It is imperative that both the public and private sectors fully realize the implications of a sincere commitment to the comprehensive planning process. Such a commitment requires the effective utilization of human resources to carry out the administrative, procedural, and regulatory aspects of plan maintenance and implementation, as well as, providing adequate financial appropriations targeted for supportive purposes. Successful plan implementation also requires an effective capital improvements programming process to ensure that plans for community facilities and services are carried out. Such a program can also allow improvement proposals to be tested against a set of adopted policies and goals; better schedule public improvements that require more than one year to complete; provide the opportunity to purchase land before costs go up; provide for long- range financial planning and management; offer an opportunity for citizens and public interest groups to participate in decision making; and contribute to more effective and efficient management of municipal affairs. A capital improvement is normally considered any nonrecurring expenditure or any expenditure for physical facilities associated with a governmental body, including costs for acquisition of land or interests in land; construction and major alterations to buildings or other structures; street construction or utility installation; fixed equipment; landscaping; and other similar expenditures.

16-2 A capital improvement budget is a list of projects together with the amounts and sources of funding for the coming fiscal or calendar year. It is normally included in the capital improvement section of the annual municipal budget. A capital improvement program is a multi-year schedule of projects, and the planned budgeted expenditures necessary to finance them. The program normally covers a six-year period; the upcoming budget and a five year period beyond. It is customary to prepare a capital improvement budget and capital improvement program annually; revising the program, as necessary and adopting the budget annually as part of the regular municipal operating budget. Preparation of a Capital Improvement Program is recommendedto the County Board of Commissioners and local governing bodies to assure that a financial plan is provided for the realization of comprehensive plan recommendations. Due to the procedure of annual review and revisions to the budget and program, it is recommended that the Capital Improvement Program adopted pursuant to a Comprehensive Plan not be included in the text, but be maintained as a separate supporting document to be evaluated and revised on an annual basis. It is recommended that the County take full advantage of available federal, state, regional, county, and local resources to achieve the planning objectives. Also, two university campuses located in the Tri-County Regional function as valuable technical resources for municipal governments. The Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg Campus, located in Lower Swatara Township, Dauphin County, maintains a graduate level curriculum in Public Administration and the Institute for State and Regional Affairs. The staff office of the Pennsylvania State Data Center of the United States Bureau of Census is also located on this campus. The University and these organizations have an abundance of planning/administrative reference materials and resources in their staffs, professors, and students that public officials may utilize for technical assistance. Shippensburg University, located in Shippensburg, Cumberland County, maintains undergraduate and graduate level planning and local government administration related curriculums that could also provide assistance to public officials in managing governmental affairs. In particular, the University maintains the Center for Local and State Governments which is located on campus. Technical assistance and services are available through the Center. As reflected in Chapter 10, County Administration and Finances, the County has established and maintained the basic administrative, legislative, and financial commitments to support planning throughout the County. This commitment is further reinforced through efforts to prepare the County's first comprehensive plan. Successful implementation of this Plan will require continued and enhanced support into the future, if the County administration and its departments are to keep pace with and effectively manage rapidly expanding residential and economic 16-3 I development activities and the concurrent fiscal and service demands they generate. 1 The following policies and courses of action are set forth as prerequisites to accompanying this task: I 1. The Planning Commission should reestablish the following standing committeesto assist in its review and recommendatory planning functions: I Land Use Committee Transportation Committee Housing Committee Community Facilities Committee I Codes and Ordinances Committee 2. Maintain active representative positions on the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Technical and Coordinating I Committees. 3. Maintain active representative positions on the Tri-County 1 Regional Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission should continue to participate in establishing the County-level program necessary to implement I the Pennsylvania Farmland Protection Program in Dauphin County. One member of the Dauphin County Planning Commission should be appointed to serve on the Board created to I administer this Program, with the Planning Department providing appropriate technical support. 1 5. Actively promote local government participation in the Local Planning Assistance Program and encourage the County Board of Commissioners to continue to provide a program funding subsidy to those local governments participating in the Program. I 6. Prepare quarterly newsletters on planning related activities and issues for distribution to local officials and interested I organizations, institutions, and individuals. 7. Encourage and assist local governments in the preparation and implementation of mun'icipal comprehensive plans and I implementing codes and ordinances. 8. Establish and maintain effective liaison and mutual support 1 activities with appropriate private and public sector organizations, to include but not limited to the following: 1 Capital Area Transit Capital Region Economic Development Corporation Chambers of Commerce Dauphin County Housing Authority I Dauphin County Redevelopment Authority Dauphin County Solid Waste Authority Dauphin County Economic Development Department 8 Dauphin County Transportation Department Dauphin County Conservation District

16-4 I 8 I

Dauphin County Assessor's Office I Dauphin County Engineering Consultant Tri-County Regional Planning Commission I Harrisburg Area Transportation Study 9. Encourage and participate in the timely preparation, or update of the following single-purpose functional plans necessary to 1 implement the County Comprehensive Plan: Solid Waste Management Plan Sewerage Plan Storm Water Management Plan Recreation Plan I Capital Improvements Program Water Supply Plan 10. Support, and if deemed necessary, enhance the Tri- County Regional Planning Departments staff capabilities to accomplish 1 the following planning tasks:

0 conduct an annual development survey reflecting I residential and non-residential construction activities throughout the County.

0 Update the existing land use inventory through field I survey and utilization of tax assessment records.

0 Maintain the Dauphin County Subdivision and Land 1 Development Regulations in compliance with state enabling legislation, single-purpose legislation, and current I planning/engineering principles and standards. 0 Recommend that the County Board of Commissioners and Tax Assessor's Office consider preparation of new County Tax 1 Maps based on aerial photography. 0 Maintain a complete and current file of all municipal comprehensive plans, subdivision and land development I regulations, zoning ordinances, sewerage plans, and other planning related documents adopted at the local level. I 0 Maintain a complete and current set of all municipal flood hazard boundary maps and studies.

0 Maintain a complete and current listing of all municipal I governing body members, planning commission members, and local code enforcement officers, to include addresses and I phone numbers. 0 Establish and maintain computerized data base files, graphics, and word processing capabilities, with m appropriate hardware and software. 0 Encourage and support staff training and professional I enhancement on a continuing basis. 0 Establish and maintain a comprehensive monitoring program I on appropriate planning data elements and conduct an 16-5 1 I annual update of the Basic Studies Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 0 Utilizing the updated Basic Studies Element, and single- purpose functional plans, conduct a major reassessment of the Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Element every 1 five years.

0 Prepare a capital improvement budget and capital I improvement program; revising the program as necessary and adopting the budget annually as part of the continuing planning and implementation process. I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

16-6 I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX

The following is a list of studies, reports and documents that were reviewed during the preparation of this plan.

Subject Location

Dauphin County Sewerage Community TCRPC Office Plan - 1995 Facilities

Dauphin County Solid Community TCRPC Office Waste Plan - 1991 Facilities

Dauphin County Storm Community Dauphin County Water Management Plans - Facilities Conservation Paxton Creek, Spring Creek District & West, Wiconisco Creek, TCRPC Office and Multi-Creek Watersheds

Dauphin County Open Space Community Dauphin County and Environment Task Force Facilities and Parks and Report - 1991 Future Land Use Recreation Department & TCRPC Office

Capitol Region Water Board Community TCRPC Office Regional Water Supply Facilities Study - 1992 i Susquehanna River Community TCRPC Office Conservation Plan - 1998 Facilities

Cultural Connections Cultural Metro Arts

Economic Challenges, Economic TCRPC Office Opportunities, and Development Strategies for South Central Pennsylvania

Dauphin County Agricultural Future Land Use Dauphin County Conservation Easement Conservation Program District

Municipal Comprehensive Future Land Use TCRPC Office Plans and Zoning Ordinances I

I J,ocat&m

Fair Housing Analysis Housing TCRPC Office I Tri-County Region

Bicycle/Pedestrian 1 Transportation Plan - 1997 Transportation TCRPC Office

Phase I Harrisburg Transportation TCRPC Office I CBD/CMS Study - 1996

Third & Market Street Transportation TCRPC Office I (Lemoyne) CMS Study - 1996

Phase 11, Transit Transportation TCRPC Office I Alternative Study - 1996

Regional Congestion Transportation TCRPC Office 1 Management System - 1995

Travel Demand Model Land Transportation TCRPC Office I Use Forecasts and Methodology - 1995

I Intermodal Management Transportation TCRPC Office System Report - 1995

I PA 34 Corridor Study -1994 Transportation TCRPC Office

1995-2015 HATS Transportation TCRPC Office I Transportation Plan

Capitol Area Transit Transportation TCRPC Office I Paratransit Plan - 1993

Transit Alternatives Study- Transportation TCRPC Office I 1993 I US 322 Corridor Study - 1993 Transportation TCRPC Office Turnpike/PA 743 Interchange Transportation TCRPC Office 1 Study - 1993 Philadelphia to Harrisburg Transportation TCRPC Office I Rail Study - 1992 I I 1

Ject Locatim I

Capitol Area Transit Transportation TCRPC Office Strategic Plan -1990 1

Short Range Transit Plans - Transportation TCRPC Office FY 1987-97 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I