Council narrowly approves staff RFP to explore leasing part of Penny Park

Lock Haven — The Lock Haven City Council voted 4–3 on Feb. 7 to direct staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to explore leasing part of Penny Park for recreational development, including potential camping and RV sites, while leaving ball fields under city control.

Council member Doug moved the measure and advocates argued the RFP could identify private partners willing to invest in camp/RV infrastructure and reduce ongoing maintenance costs. "What if there's interest and we have 2 or 3 legitimate private entities that want to work with us and develop an area now that does nothing except cost us money," one proponent said.

Opponents cautioned staff capacity and legal constraints tied to how the property was acquired. The solicitor‑staff commentary presented a practical limit: because the park is public property and in some cases subject to acquisition terms, any leased recreation sites would have to remain open to the public for at least 51% of the year, a condition that could limit private operator control. Council member Richard (opponent) said he was skeptical a private lessee would accept the restrictions or the administrative burden.

The final roll call on the motion was: Beyerly, Conklin, Stevenson and Brinker voted yes; Masorti, Morris and Mayor Long voted no. Council preserved the ball fields in the motion and asked staff to route any RFP through the solicitor and state review (including DCNR or federal land agency review where applicable).

Why it matters: Penny Park is currently city property outside the municipal limits and has recurring maintenance costs; council’s RFP instruction starts a process to determine whether a private operator can responsibly develop parts of the park for revenue‑generating outdoor recreation while meeting public‑access constraints and statutory requirements.

Next steps: Staff will draft the RFP and submit it for solicitor review and any required state/federal review before returning to council. Council members who opposed the motion said they expect staff workload and legal hurdles to influence feasibility.