Advisory board moves to recommend Humble Park 'Jump' plan phase two, including expanded parking and pickleball courts

The township advisory board moved to recommend that the board of supervisors consider the Jump Plan update provided by YSN and advance phase two work at Humble Park, a proposal that would add an elongated 46‑space parking lot, pickleball courts and stormwater mitigation while removing several existing park structures.

At a meeting called to order by the board chair, a committee member moved “to recommend that the board of supervisors accept the Jump Plan, the Jump update plan provided by YSN and move forward with phase two,” and members discussed adopting the plan as the township vision so phases could proceed as funding becomes available. The motion was made during a discussion of site details and bid allowances; the transcript does not record a final roll‑call vote tally.

YSN’s phase‑by‑phase description, as presented to the committee, lists demolition and site preparation items the committee said are tied to phase two: removal of restrooms and a concessions building, removal of pavements, two tennis courts, one basketball court, one ball field (including infield dugouts), batting cages and ground equipment. The consultant also outlined surface work including excavation, aggregate base, pavement and striping, concrete plaza and heavy‑duty concrete at a dumpster pad, stairs and railings, seating walls, native landscaping and erosion control. The project description included an add‑alternate allowance for pickleball court lighting, parking area lighting and walkway lighting rather than fixed full‑park lighting.

Members pressed for clarity on funding and timing. One participant who said they served on the committee praised the plan’s goals but warned of cost: “I also think it’s a very expensive plan … I think $3 million is a lot of money,” a speaker said during the discussion of grant dependency and phased implementation. Committee members noted that phase two could proceed if grant funding is secured and that adopting the plan as advisory guidance would allow later phases to be pursued when funds are available.

The committee discussed public‑interest tradeoffs around lighting. Kevin asked whether permanent lighting would be part of phase two; presenters confirmed an allowance for lighting is in the cost estimate as an add‑alternate but said advisory members had previously decided not to pursue full park lighting because of neighbor concerns, night‑sky and energy considerations. Members suggested limited options, such as solar sign lighting or renting lights for occasional nighttime events, instead of bright, permanent parking‑lot illumination.

The advisory member who moved the recommendation said the motion would be placed on the upcoming township agenda for the board of supervisors to consider; the transcript records committee discussion and a motion to recommend but does not show a final supervisors’ vote. Next procedural steps noted in the meeting: staff will place the recommendation on the supervisors’ agenda for formal consideration, and members requested additional detail on funding sources and the timeline before the supervisors’ decision.

Clarifying details extracted from the discussion include the consultant’s scope descriptions and the 46‑space parking figure in the phase‑two plan; removal items were listed by the presenter during the site‑preparation review. The committee flagged several implementation questions to resolve before the supervisors consider the recommendation: final funding breakdowns (grant vs. township funds), exact demolition schedule, and whether any permanent lighting will be included as a funded scope item.

The committee’s discussion closed with a consensus to forward the recommendation and to return to the supervisors’ agenda; the transcript does not record a final vote outcome in the advisory meeting minutes portion provided.