Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/1988 Park Board Packet PARKBOARD AGENDA JANUARY 4, 1988 1 . CALL TO ORDER 2 . MINUTES 3 . REVIEW OLD PARK NEEDS SURVEY 4. REVIEW EXISTING PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANS 5 . REVIEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - BRING PREVIOUSLY SENT MATERIAL 6. OLD BUSINESS A. BUDGET UPDATE B . PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE C . CITY TOUR REMINDER, JANUARY 9, 1988 - 9: 00 A. M. D . CHAIN-O-LAKES REGIONAL PARK UPDATE - FEBRUARY 1ST 7 . NEW BUSINESS A. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1 . ERICKSON' S 2ND ADDITION 2 . SOUTH RESHANAU LAKE ESTATES 8. ADJOURN i 1) COUNTRY LAKES PARKS (Lawcon Fund) Total Construction Costs: $143,986.79 Costs Eligible for Grant Funding: $129,408.08 State Grant Funds Received: $43,459.21 Federal Grant Funds Received: '56,367.00 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED: $ 99,826. 21 City Share of Funding: $ 44, 160. 58 2) DEDICATED PARK FUND BALANCE 8/31/87 $134,062.54 1 k FROM T City of Lino Lake O Attn: Randy Schumacher 1 189 Main St. ERICKSON-LARSEN, INC_ Lino Lake, MN 55014 7100 NORTHLAND CIRCLE L BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55428 PHONE 612/535-0055 SUBJECT Rice Creek Trail Association CPP006307 DATE 2/ 17/88 Attached please find certificate of insurance issued for the above mentioned insured's general liability renewal policy. Limits covered are $600,000. each occurrence subject to an annual policy aggregate of $ 1,200,000. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at the number listed above. Thank you! SIGNE-b inda Elstad cc: Rice Creek Trail Association REPLY c/o LeRoy Strehlo 231 Twilite Terrace Circle Pines, MN 55014 DATE SIGNED SENDER: REMOVE PINK COPY REPLIER: RETURN WHITE COPY FORWARD WHITE AND YELLOW COPIES RETAIN YELLOW FOR FILE ILI ISSUE DATE(MM/DD/YY) "_ 2/ 17/88 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, Erickson-Larsen, Inc. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. - 7100 Northland Circle Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY LETTER A Northfield Insurance Company COMPANY B INSURED LETTER RICE CREEK TRAIL ASSOCIATION COMPANY c/o LeRoy Strehlo LETTER C 231 Twilite Terrace COMPANY Circle Pines, MN 55014 LETTER D COMPANY E LETTER • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE:LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR DATE(MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY) GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS-COMP/OPS AGGREGATE $ 1 CLAIMS MADE ©OCCURRENCE C PP 00 6 3 0 7 2/ 1 6/8 8 i 2/ 1 6/8 9 PERSONAL&ADVERTISING INJURY $ 600, OWNER'S&CONTRACTORS PROTECTIVE EACH OCCURRENCE $ FIRE DAMAGE(ANY ONE FIRE) $ 2 MEDICAL EXPENSE(ANY ONE PERSON) ,$ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO CSL $ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (PER PERSON) $ HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY NON-OWNED AUTOS ACCIDENT) $ GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE $ EXCESS-LIABILITY EACH AGGREGATE QQ OCCURRENCE W OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM STATUTORY WORKERS'COMPENSATION $ (EACH ACCIDENT) AND -- EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY $ (DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT) $ (DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE) OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS Maintenance, care and grooming of snowmobile trails in Anoka County and Washington County knownas RICE CREEK SNOWMOBILE TRAIL. Below Named certificate Holder is included as additional insured but only as respect to operations of the Named Insured. • o • City of Lino Lake SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX. ttn: Randy Schumacher PIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO 1 189 Main St . MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE Lino Lake, MN 55014 LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGA ON OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON TH OMPA , ITS AGENTS O REPRES WIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (Mervyn R. Larsen) �Q� To r-r-- T of A,, LASE-s) I'A—, 5S'oIy A n.c►1 1�, � r 9 8 8 �.► T�t �,C9V NC►` C.1 T`� U� �\ NO t�Rlr►�S Ilock o Dc--�•� SQlzs , T1-�O V C4 Wr o u M ► G t1•T V.C- I N T'C- I out- Pkp-\C e,©I %-t) N"Jo c►TK Lounvc►L, 40-c- qv\t-c-- SAFE- 1ti (ZR\S1Nle �ff�� OC-lD���4T�t�N FF�S TE}1S tZCCN► P�PE2 w�S PRC—PI�ILE� 11,J COAJ JVNC-IrloN w ► T}1 A- L-AW CLA< S FpR_ Su2VE`POR.S ITV S40IL-r IT Wows tI{k-r L1No LASS CAN (Z E-4,U I ILc D FD►C A-"eN o ram- �*ND c)2 Ar LA-S 4 Cn rJ T►t\ — 6u T-IOAj r=o1L PAKV, �4S p� p(L� R-LQV\S�T`E- r o SOG D► V ID1/V� L,Q�JD . /4�� KAr wC cA.., S flow C5 CIt`C-�4T(-0, 1�>O A 1tC N A S ADO N E- q w► s � t tt 1 ry � \N (Zr�► S1�►fe PPttl►L oE �lc�riv,.� ems, Y RESEARCH PAPER PARK DEDICATION AS A PRECONDITION TO SUBDIVIDING BY ALAN IRWIN- NOVEMBER 6o 1987 The land surveyor is well acquainted with subdivision plats, es- pecially in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Platting of land is a common practice that we take for granted because it is backed up by laws. Both state 'and city laws regulate how we subdivide land and the re- quirements for recording plats. Sometimes we are frustrated when our preliminary plat is rejected because the city has hired a new planner who interprets the city code differently than the previous planner. Or after we have ordered our final mylars for recording• a city will refuse to sign because they want some changes to the utility easements. In these cases the surveyor usually advises the property owner, "That' s the way it is. If you want tosubd.ivide, you have to give the city what it wants. " But have we ever stopped to think about the rights of the property owner? What gives the city the right to require easements or street wid.enings or even take land for a park? Why is city approval even needed to divide and sell a portion of privately owned land? Specifically. I want to answer the question ,"Can a city require a ded- ication of land. for parks or money in lieu thereof as a condition of subdividing?" Let's dig into the law. The Minnesota Legislature by Statute 462.358 has delegated author- ity to cities to regulate subdivision. Subd.. la.Authority. To protect and. promote the public health, safety# and general welfare, to provide for the ord.erly, _ _ economio* and. safe development of land, to preserve agricultural landso to promote the availability of housing affordable to per- sons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate ade- quate provision for transportationg water, sewage, storm drain- age, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilitiest a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision C �) regulations establishing standards, requirements, and. proce- dures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivi- sions. Subd. 2b. Dedication. In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, playground.s, trails, or open spaces provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion re- quired to be d.ed.icated. to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval,. (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained., (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consid.er the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and. facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d.) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for -the pur- . poses stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision. This law is a result of several amendments to vdflne. ii s specific �1 meaning. In, its current form, Minn. St. § 462.358 specifically allows cities to require land or money for park prior to subdivision approval. However, d.on't forget the rights of the property owner. Professor John D. Johnston Jr. , in his law review article statesc "Virtually every subdivision control dispute presents issues concerning the constitutionality and. interpretation of the ena- bling act, the validity of the implementing ordinance, and the question whether a given regulation constitutes so severe a burden as to be unreasonable as applied to a particular sub- divider. Each involves judgments about the proper scope of the police power and the ambit of freedom from official reg- * 2 elation that is implicit in the concept of private property. The park dedication requirement has been challenged. as a taking of property without just compensation, contrary to the United States 44 *5 Constitution and. the Minnesota Constitution. Early oases upheld sub---- division dedications for streets, parks, ftc. , either on the ground. that the subdivider voluntarily agreed to so dedicate his land or on the ground, that subdivision recordation was a privilege which could be conditioned on dedication. Ip' the case of Pioneer Trust & Say. Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect. the Illinois Supreme Court made a substantial contribution to police power analysis. The court set forth the following test for distinguishing takings and valid exercise of the police power in subdivision d.edicatlonst "# * If the requirement is within the statutory grant of power to the municipality and. if the burden cast upon the sub- divider is specifically and uniquely attributable to his activ- ity, then the requirement is permissible."* In the case of Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, the Wisconsin court, after stating the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test, adopted the following refinements "We deem this (the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' test) to be an acceptable statement of the yardstick to be ap- plied, provided the words 'specifically and uniquely attributable ot to his activity' areso restrictively applied as to cast an un- reasonable burden of proof upon the municipality which has enkc acted the ordinance under attack. In most instances it would. be impossible for the municipality to prove that the land required /,3) to be dedicated for a park or school site was to meet a need solely attributable to the anticipated influx of people into the community to occupy this particular subdivision. On the other hand., a municipality might well be able to establish that a group of subdivisions approved, over a period of several years had been responsible for bringing into the community a considerable number of people malting it necessary that the land dedications required of subdividers be utilized. for school, park, and recreational purposes for the benefit of such influ=: r In the absence of contravening evidence this would establish a reasonable basis for finding that the need. for the acquisition was occasioned by the activity of the subdivider. Possible contravening evid.ence would be a showing that the municipality prior to the opening up of the subdivisions, acquired sufficient lands for school, park, and recreational purposes to provide for future anticipated needs including such influx, or that the normal growth of the municipality would._ have made necessary the acquisition irrespective of the influx caused by opening up of subdivisions. "We conclude that a required. dedication of land for school, park, or recreational sites as a condition for approval of the subdivision plat should. be upheld. as a valid exercise of po- lice power if the evidence reasonably establishes that the mu- nicipality will be required. to provide more land for schools, parks, and playgrounds as a result of approval of the subd.ivi- sion. " *7 In a similar vein, Professor Joseph L. Sax has argued. that uses of property which cause spillover effects on other property may be sub- ject to valid exercise of the police power: C4� . "Notice that this takings doctrine is tied to an assumption that the right to compensation, and the amount to be paid, can be determined by examining the economic effects that occur solely within the physical boundaries of one's property. Sure- ly it is naive, however, to suppose that one who profits from a piece of property necessarily uses only those resources with- in his boundaries, and equally naive to think the consequences of one property user' s activities are confined to his property. Property does not exist in isolation. Particular parcels are tied to one another in complex ways, and property is more accut-. rately described as being inextricably part of a network of relationships that is neither limited. to, nor usefully defined by, the property boundaries with which the legal system is ac- customed to dealing. Frequently, use of any given parcel of n property is at the same time effectively a use of, or a demand upon, property beyond the border of the user. "*8 The court in Jordan V. Village of Menomonee Falls also noted. the benefits of platting accruing to the land owner as a basis for dedica- tions . r "The test of reasonableness is always applicable to any attempt to exercise the police power. The basis for upholding a compulsory land.-dedication requirement in a platting ordin- anoe is this: The municipality by approval of a proposed sub- division plat enables the subdivider to profit financially by selling the subdivision lots as home-building sites and thus realizing a greater price than could have been obtained if he had sold his property as unplatted. lands. In return -for this benefit the municipality may. require him to dedicate part of his platted land to meet a demand to which the municipality (S) would. not have been put but for the influx of people into the community to occupy the subdivision lots. "009 Professor Johnston concludes the same and. states: "Clearly, the nonsubdivid.er is entitled to compensation for his land. when it is converted to street, park, or other public use. Why should. the subdivider be excluded from this guaran- tee? As implied by the excise-tax rationale of trord.an v. Village of Menomonee Fallsg 28 Wis. 2d 608, 137 N.W. 2d 442(19653 there is an- elementary but vital distinction between developers and, other land.owners. The subdivider is a manufacturer, pro- eesser, and marketer of a products land is but one of his raw materials. In subdivision control disputes, the developer is not defending hearth and. home against the king's intrusion, but simply attempting to maximize his profits from the sale of a finished product. As applied to him, subdivision control ex- actions are actually business regulations. "- * Professor Johnston also observes a trend.: "A careful reading of early cases would. have demonstrated the inapplicability of the 'voluntariness' and 'privilege' ra- tionales after platting ceased to be discretionary. When these J unsatisfactory doctrines finally gave way to the police-power rationale, bench and, bar were unprepared. to apply the new anal- ysis to subdivision control problems. Meanwhile, the inexorable pressure of urbanization and. suburbanization forced state and municipal legislatures to take action to protect the public ins terest 'while there was yet time. ' Their response to emerging public needs inevitably contravened certain traditional attitudes about land. ownership. As we have seen, the conflict has been resolved generally in- favor of such devices as compulsory dedi- cation for streets and. installation of subdivision utilities. r1 On the issue of compulsory dedication, or cash in lieu of dedi- cation, for other public purposes, however, the tide of judicial opinion has run in favor of subdividers until very recent times. "E 2 One of the most forceful statements contrary to this trend. is the con- cluding paragraph of Heyman & Gilhools "We have chosen to challenge the emerging rule that would prohibit exactions for a full range of municipal capital expend- itures• particularly for schools and. recreation. It seems im- portant to as to free so imprecise and troublesome an area as municipal finance, haunted. so often by necessity, from Inflexi- ble constitutional strictures. In an ideal world the problems of municipal finance would be met more surely and just as fair- ly by some system more thorough than subdivision exaction. In the meantime, municipalities must meet' the demands of the day as best they can. So long as our sense of fairness is not seriously affronted.-- and. exactions of the sort we . have dis- cussed. here fall well within that. limit--municipalities must * 10 be left their salvational' In Minnesota the constitutionality of this park dedication re- quirement has been challenged in Collis v. City of Bloomington, 19769 310 Minn. 5, 246 N,W. 2d 19. The court finds: "While in general subdivision regulations are a valid ex- ercise of the police power, made necessary by the problems subdivisions create--i.e. , greater needs for municipal ser- vices and facilities--, the possibility of arbitrariness and unfairness in their application is nonetheless substantial: A municipality could, use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs C, created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the bur- den of paying for additional services on all citizens via tax- . ation. To tolerate this situation would be to allow an other- wise acceptable exercise of police power to become grand theft. But the enabling statute here prevents this from ocouring by authorizing dedication of only a 'reasonable portion' of land. for the purposes stated. We therefore uphold. the statute as constitutional. "" It is evident that the court has upheld cities right to require a reasonable portion for park dedication. But what is a "reasonable portion"? The court states a defin- ition in Collis v.rCity of Bloomington: "A 'reasonable portion' is construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the munici- pality will need. to acquire for the purposes stated as a re- sult of approval of the subdivision. This is, of necessity, a facts-and.-circumstances test , but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality' s needs for certain kinds of facilities and. the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs. "In articulating this test, we decline to follow the ex- treme approaches of the Illinois aid Montana cases discussed herein. We choose instead to follow the lead. of Wisconsin, California, and New York, and. those cases which hold. that a reasonable relationship between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality' s need for land. is required.. "*« In a law review article by Cutler we find. "In theory, the most scientific way to relate the quantity of land to be dedicated to the need. for the use of such land would be to require a land use analysis of the particular needs of each subdivision relating to parks school facilities, storm water drainage, etc. Such a flexible provision is expensive, time consuming, and subject to abuse by overzealous or unin- formed. officials. Much more common is the arbitrary require- went that some definate percentage, such as 5 or 10 percent, of the land area to be dedicated for such purposes. . "It is most unscientific to take a flat percentage of each subdivision for public land. It would. be far more logical to require, as is being done more and more, a cash contribution which would be designed to defray that part of the cost of the public sites required, to serve the particular subdivision. "'* �Z- A fitting conclusion to this discussion is a final quote from Professor John D. Johnston Jr. s "In a very real sense, all subdivision control exactions are grounded upon a judgment that subdivisions which do not provide adequate space for streets, utilities, parks, and. other public uses are defective. - Although the consumer may be able to disern the existence of such defects, his bargain- ing power is probably too weak to force subdividers to provide necessary improvements. From the municipality's point of view, the danger from a defective subdivision is actually greater than the threat posed by defectively manufactured automobiles, refrigerators, or other durable goods. The subdivision re- mains, long after the automobiles have been relegated. to the Junk heap, to spawn conditions of slum and. blight. Further, .� the removal or rehabilitation of a subdivision may necessitate large expenditures of public funds. The ability of a defec- tive environment -to cripple or maim its inhabitants may not ( 1 be so dramatic and obvious as that of automobiles and. other Inherently dangerous instrumentalities, but it is no less real. "The burden of establishing a rational nexus between their exactions and, the public needs attributable to subdivision d.e- velopment is a substantial one. Standards can be developed and. supported. only after considerable data have been gathered and, carefully analyzed. It may be impossible to determine to everyone' s satisfaction the precise point at which sufficient subdivision improvements are furnished. to prevent the d.evolop ment from being 'substandard. ' But if we accept similar under- tainties in zoning and building-code enforcement, we should be equally willing to do so in subdivision control matters--pro- vid.ed, of course, that state and local officials allocate suf- ficient resources to accomplish the formulation of defensible subdivision standards. "* FOOTNOTES *1 Before 1965, Minn. St.§§471 .26 to 471.33 gave to cities much the same authority concerning park dedication as evidenced by Op. Atty. Gen. 18-D, Jan. 29, 1954• Minn. St . 1965 1 462,358 was passed. as Laws 1965. c. 670 §8. The park dedication clause of §462.358 was revised by Laws 1971 , e.842 §11 haws 1973, c.176 §11 and. Laws 1980 0.566 1§25 to 33- *2 Johnston,"Constitutionality of Subdivision Control Exactionss The Quest for a Rationale; 52 Cornell L. Q. 871 , 922. *3 Black's Law Dictionary defines police power ass The power of the state to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for protection of the public safety, health, and. morals or the promotion of the public convenience and. general prosperity. The police power is subject to limit- ations of the federal and state cunstitutions, and. especially to the requirement of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote ord.er, safety, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essemtial attribute of government. *4 The Fifth Amendment to the United. States Constitution provides In relevant parts "* * (N)or 'shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. " *5 Article 1 , §13, of the Minnesota Constitution providess Private property shall not be taken, destroyed. or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid. or secured.. " *6 Pioneer Truot & Say. Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 22 Ill, 2d. 375 t 176 N.E. 2d. 799 (1961) *7 Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis. 2d. 608,617 , 137 N.W. 2d 442,447 *8 Sax,"Takings, Private Property and. Public Rights. 81 Yale L.J. 149,152 *9 Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis. 2d. 608,619, 137 N.W. 2d. 442,448 *10 Heyman & Gilhool, "The Constitutionality of Imposing Increased. Community Costs on New Suburban Residents Through Subdivision Exactions, " 73 Yale L.J. 1119,1157 (1964) *11 Collis v. City of Bloomington, 1976, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W. 2d. 19,26 *12 Cutler, "Legal and. Illegal Methods for Controlling Community Growth on the Urban Fringe, " 1961 Wis. L. Rev. 370t389-390 *13 Johnston, "Constitutionality of Subdivision Control Exactionsr The Quest for a Rationale, " 52 cornell L.Q. 871 ,923-924 *Also researched but not quoted.a Op. Atty, Gen. 469c-80 Jan. 28, 1960 23 Am Jur 2d. Dedication 4 43 A.L.R.3d. 862 KDA T.OLTZ,KING,DUVALL.ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES,INCORPORATED ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SAINT PAUL.MINNESOTA 55101-1893 612/292-4400 FAX 612/292-0083 February 1 , 1988 Parks Board City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Re: Development Plan Resh anau Lake Estates Erickson's Second Addition Lino Lakes, Minnesota Gentlemen: Attached herewith is a proposed project scope and time schedule for developing an overall development plan for the proposed parks in the above referenced subdivisions. TKDA will prepare the development plans as outlined In the standard engineering agreement dated April 26, 1982. The City w I I I be bIIIed f or the actual hours and expenses for the project with a maximum amount not to exceed $7,500.00. If the proposal outlined above is approved by the City, we will draft a separate agreement outlining the final scope of work and contract price. Sincerely yours, Rona i d J. St hl berg, P.E. RJ S:j Enclosures cc: Randy Schumacher, City Administrator r DESIGN SERVICES FOR ERICKSON' S 2ND ADDITION PARK AND SOUTH RESHANAU LAKE ESTATES PARK PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND WORK SCOPE *February 1st Meeting: - Review project requirements, schedule, work scope and design costs. Months of February and March= Site visits/inventory/photographs - Review of background data/drawings - Site analysis/capability assessment - Develop schematic sketches (Plan View) for each site - Develop rough construction cost estimates for schematic alternatives *April Meeting: - Discuss schematic sketches and construction costs - Def ine direction for master plans Month of - Develop master plans - Develop grading and landscape concepts - Ref i ne construction cost estimates *May Me_eti na: - Approve master plans (with minor revisions If necessary) Month of W- - Final master plan revisions - Develop grading and landscaping plans - Prepare phased cost estimates *June eeti nm: - Present f inal master plans, grading and landscaping plans, and phased cost estimates. * Denotes Park Board meeting