Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belgrade parks board tables 2025 master plan after inventory, CIP and governance questions
Summary
After a consultant presentation on the district''s first master plan and public engagement results, the board voted to table final adoption so staff and consultants can correct inventory details, clarify CIP entries and address governance and senior-center funding questions.
The Belgrade Regional Parks, Trails, and Recreation District board tabled adoption of its 2025 master plan after a consultant presentation and detailed board questions about inventory accuracy, pathway ownership and capital project listings.
Art Belida, project lead for consulting firm Cushing Terrell, summarized the plan and the public-engagement process: "we collected over 750 data points along this," he said, noting "over 400 survey respondents and over a 100 pins on our interactive map." The presentation outlined recommended capital projects (Lions Park relocation, a regional aquatic center and studies of a regional park and river pathway), program priorities and a CIP framework for prioritizing work.
Board members raised multiple concerns during the question-and-answer period. One member said the plan''s inventory seemed misleading when it listed 24 "current dog parks"; the consultant (identified in the presentation as Charles Stroud) explained that previous inventories and trail plans were aggregated and that entries included a mix of dog stations, HOA facilities and locations where dogs are permitted rather than dedicated off-leash dog parks. Members also questioned pathway metrics that appeared to count trails maintained by federal agencies, which could give the impression the district maintained far more local recreational trails than it does.
Board members pressed for clearer fiscal and governance context for certain items. One board member noted the senior center is governed and funded separately and said any recommendation to relocate it should clearly state funding and governance implications; consultants acknowledged wording changes were needed. There were also questions about CIP project labels and an earlier document date that might create confusion in the public record.
Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to table the discussion and approval of the master plan until revisions reflecting the night's comments were made. The board conducted a roll-call vote; the transcript records the roll-call names and unanimous "aye" votes: Jamie Rosemary (aye); Emily Jackson (aye); Danny Perry (aye); Joseph Bernard (aye); Alex King (aye). The motion carried.
Consultants and staff said they would integrate the requested clarifications, check updated document versions distributed to the board, and return the plan for consideration once edits are complete. The board discussed options for additional workshops or staff-led revisions prior to final adoption.
