Community center option selected by White Oak
White Oak council adopted a resolution on Monday selecting an option for a new community center.
The center is a proposed 1,374-square-foot facility to be built near the White Oak Athletic Association's gymnasium at 1606 Lower Heckman Road.
It comes with an estimated $1,144,366 cost and includes a new kitchen and storage area.
“It's going to improve the White Oak Athletic Association tremendously,” council vice president Edward Babyak said.
“I think it's an advantage to our community to have a community center where our senior citizens can have activities during the day, and the youth can have activities in the evening,” council president Dave Pasternak said. “Individuals can use the center also for having individual parties.”
Council had two options from which to choose for a community center. Proposals were submitted by resident Scott Smith of SP Smith Construction Services.
The second was the smaller and more affordable option.
“We need to stay within budget as close as we can,” Pasternak said.
The borough was awarded a $500,000 matching grant through the state's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program.
Pasternak said the borough has the remaining money in its capital improvements fund.
Mayor Ina Jean Marton said the community center will benefit the entire borough and not just senior citizens.
Michael DiVittorio is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1965, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.