The 22-Acre Gift With Strings
A developer has conveyed 22 acres to the city for a new community park. Six acres lie in the FEMA-mapped floodplain along a creek. A 1940s barn on the site has peeling paint and probable asbestos-containing material. Soil borings show a water table 18 inches below grade in the western third. The nearest existing park, 0.4 miles away, has two ballfields running at 85% prime-time utilization, a playground rated for ages 5-12 only, and no restrooms. Two schools sit within 0.75 miles, but the access road has no sidewalk. Adjacent homeowners have already organized against lighted fields, citing noise and glare. Council has allocated $1.5M from the developer and wants an adopted master plan in nine months.
1. Complete the site analysis. Which uses go where, and what constraints drive those placements?
Read the worked answer
Floodplain (6 acres): passive only. Trails, boardwalk, creek overlook, natural area, and open lawn that can flood. No fill, no critical facilities, no restrooms or electrical infrastructure. Confirm with the floodplain administrator whether any proposed work triggers a no-rise certification, and put that requirement in the plan rather than discovering it at permit.
High water table (western third): no conventional infiltration, no basements, no heavy structures. Expect engineered stormwater above grade, raised footings, and a cost premium. Test before you design; a playground or restroom sited there will settle and you will own the repair bill for a decade.
Barn: assess before you plan. Peeling paint and probable asbestos mean a hazardous-materials survey and cost estimate first. Options are demolition, stabilization as a shelter/restroom, or mothballing. Cost may consume 10-15% of the $1.5M. Do not draw the barn into a concept rendering before you have the number.
Athletic fields: outside the floodplain, and only after a demand check. Two fields at 85% prime-time utilization suggests strain, but the cheaper answer may be scheduling and lighting the existing fields rather than building new ones on a constrained site. 85% is busy, not saturated.
Access and walkability: the real gap. Two schools within 0.75 miles with no sidewalk is a safety defect, not an amenity wish. Coordinate with public works, developer contributions, or a grant program before the park opens, because a park people cannot walk to safely serves only drivers.
2. How do you run public engagement so the plan is legitimate, given an organized neighborhood opposition to lighted fields?
Read the worked answer
Engage on the actual conflict, with data, and give the alternative real weight.
- Three channels, not one. A stakeholder advisory group (schools, neighbors, sports groups, accessibility advocates), two open houses, and an online survey. The advisory group is where you resolve the field question; the open houses build the record.
- Test the field need before defending it. Bring utilization data, a waitlist if one exists, and an assessment of whether lighting the existing two fields closes the gap. If it does, the lighting debate on the new site may be unnecessary.
- If lights are proposed, answer the objection technically. A photometric plan with cut-off fixtures, glare shielding aimed away from homes, a curfew, and a planted buffer. Offer a genuine unlit alternative as a design option so the choice is real and documented.
- Do not promise what council has not funded. $1.5M will not build lighted fields after access, parking, restrooms, and a playground. Saying so early protects you later.
- Publish what you heard and what changed. A one-page response matrix, including the items you rejected and why. Organized opposition persists when it believes it was not heard.
- Bring accessibility advocates in at the start, so the accessible route, restroom, and inclusive play equipment are design criteria, not late additions.
Nine months is enough for this if the advisory group meets monthly and the barn survey starts in week one.
3. Allocate the $1.5M into phases. What gets built first, what waits, and how do you justify the sequence?
Read the worked answer
Build against the existing deficit first, not against the loudest ask.
Phase 1 (roughly $1.35M, with ~10% contingency):
- Access road, entrance, and parking: $350,000
- Accessible route plus sidewalk connection toward the schools (partner-funded or grant-matched): $150,000
- Restroom: $250,000
- Inclusive playground with shade and unitary surfacing, serving ages 2-5 and 5-12: $300,000
- Loop trail through the floodplain and natural area: $150,000
- Site prep, drainage, and contingency: $150,000
Phase 2, deferred and grant-dependent: lighted fields, barn rehabilitation or demolition beyond abatement, splash pad, additional courts.
The justification is a deficit argument. The nearby park has no restrooms and a playground with no early-childhood component; those are the most basic unmet needs and they serve the schools within walking distance. Restrooms and trail cost relatively little and generate immediate daily use. Fields are expensive, contested, and may be partially solved by lighting what already exists.
Life-cycle caution: shade structures and unitary surfacing cost more up front and much less over ten years than fabric canopies and loose fill that must be topped up. Do not build a splash pad or a second restroom you cannot staff and maintain; every square foot of programmed space becomes a perpetual operating line item. Say that out loud in the plan so the maintenance budget conversation happens now rather than at year three.