Full Text
1 CITY of BELGRADE MONTANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) Comprehensive City Master Planning Update & Web-Based Platform Development Project City of Belgrade 91 East Central Avenue Belgrade, MT 59714 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] Proposals must be received no later than: March 27, 2023, at or before 5:00 p.m. MST; Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered for award. The City of Belgrade will respond to questions specific to the available documents, RFP clarifications, and the review process. Any questions beyond All questions must be submitted via email to Jason Karp at [EMAIL REDACTED] by February 27, 2023 at 5:00pm MST. Responses to the questions will be posted on the City’s website at www.belgrademt.gov by March 15, 2023. The purpose of these Q&A is to provide guidance to respondents in the interpretation of or any other questions relating to this RFP. Please direct questions to Jason Karp at [EMAIL REDACTED] The City of Belgrade desires submittals that are specific to this project and organized as outlined. Respondents must submit at least physical copies plus one electronic version of the proposal. The electronic version of the Proposal must be submitted as a viewable and printable Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) and mailed via USB Flash. Proposals must be enclosed in a sealed envelope or package and clearly marked: Document Alignment and Mapping Project 2023. Both hard copy and electronic versions must be received by the City on or before 5:00 PM MST on March 27, 2023. Deliver proposals to the following mailing / physical address: Mailing Address Physical Address City of Belgrade Attn: Camille Gregory 91 East Central Avenue Belgrade, MT 59714 City of Belgrade City Clerk’s Office 91 East Central Avenue Belgrade, MT 59714 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Table of Contents 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1.1 Invitation 3 1.2 Project Background 3 1.3 Guiding Documents 4 1.4 SWOT Analysis 4 1.5 Scope of Work 5 2 GENERAL INFORMATION 2.1 Preparation Costs 6 2.2 Disposition of Proposals 6 2.3 Modification/Withdrawal of Proposals 6 2.4 Oral Change/Interpretation 6 2.5 Rejection of Proposals 6 2.6 Errors in Proposal 6 2.7 Examination of Request for Proposals 7 2.8 Confidentiality 7 3 RFP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Cover Sheet 8 3.2 Consultant Team 8 3.3 Approach / Work Plan 8 3.4 Experience 8 3.5 Fee and Schedule 8 3.6 Timeline 9 3.7 Selections Process 9 4 APPENDIX 4.1 City of Belgrade – Website 10 4.2 City of Belgrade – Guiding Documents 10 4.3 Website for Consideration 10 5 SWOT Analysis 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1.1 INVITATION The City of Belgrade is seeking proposals from qualified, multidisciplinary consultant teams (which may be a single firm or a consultant team consisting of individuals and/or firms with specialized expertise) for planning, engineering, and design services associated with the Master Planning Update & Web-Based Platform Development of the City’s guiding documents and development of a creative, streamlined, web-hosted platform for the public to access and review the documents, as well as an online portal to service the viewing, submission, and review of the City’s Permit & Licensing processes. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND Belgrade has been one of the fastest growing communities in Montana for the last 10 years. Its “open arms” policy to business, access to transportation, excellent school system, proximity to year round recreation opportunities, and central location in the Gallatin Valley has afforded a strategic and historic advantage over neighboring communities. From its colorful past, Belgrade looks forward to an even brighter future in the 21st century! The most significant indicator of growth is the number of new people moving into town. The last time Belgrade’s population declined was in 2010, when the City lost about 100 people according to Census estimates. Since then, growth has increased, with the fastest rates occurring in recent years. In recent years the city has grown by about 1,000 people per year. Based on dwelling units currently being developed, the population is expected to be over 13,000 by the July 2023 census estimate. This growth pattern provides a challenge with water, sewer, and other infrastructure systems. Development in Belgrade has grown beyond much of the previously completed master planning for those infrastructure systems. Belgrade is projected to add somewhere between 4,800 and 6,000 people between 2019 and 2030 that will generate demand for adequate housing, employment opportunities, utility and transportation infrastructure, goods and services, and recreational opportunities. In preparation, the City undertook an update to its growth policy in 2020 to create a plan for guiding growth and future land use as an aid to community leaders, developers, designers, and citizens. The ultimate goal is to provide for the safety, health, and well-being of all those that do business in as well as make Belgrade their home or are welcome visitors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 1.3 THE CITY OF BELGRADE - GUIDING DOCUMENTS: The following are considered the guiding documents for the project: • Growth Policy (2020) • Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2020) • Transportation Master Plan (2018) • Wastewater Master Plan (2018) • Water Master Plan (2017) • Triangle Community Plan (2020) • Zoning Diagnostic Table (Available April 2023) • Annexation Policy (2022) • Belgrade Subdivision Regulations (2020) • Belgrade Downtown Design Plan (2020) • Triangle and Trail Plan (2021) • Belgrade Zoning Regulations (Update in Progress) 1.4 WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS Responding to these projections, The City of Belgrade has completed a wide range of updates to existing planning and policy documents including design, transportation, water, and zoning in recent years. Development in Belgrade has grown beyond much of the previously completed master planning for those infrastructure systems.. To maximize the recent efforts and increase efficiency for future updates, each document should be updated to reflect the most current strategies and recommendations, and impact on, one another to form a unified intent for future growth. The City of Belgrade hired a consultant team (Cushing Terrell) to complete a Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis which concluded in July 2022. The SWOT analysis included an investigation of the following: • Dates/age of each document • How the documents are used by staff and public • Comparison of the style and format of the documents • Potential conflicting information in each document as it relates to others • Clarity and readability of each document The process included conducting a survey of Belgrade staff who utilize the documents, interviews of individual staff members, a workshop with staff representatives and independent review of each guiding document. This analysis was concluded to suggest the following recommendation: Few municipalities across the country have seen growth rates similar to Belgrade over the past several years. Belgrade is growing both from added population relocating to Montana as well as people moving out of Bozeman in-order-to afford a home or even an apartment. This significant growth rate has compounded an existing issue with the City’s planning documents or Guiding Documents. Nearly every planning document has been proven outdated relative to growth totals and patterns. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Historically, planning in Montana is random and sometimes done begrudgingly. Most often the need to plan is outweighed financially by the need to “do”. Limited funds naturally go to the most urgent needs. As planning documents age or are updated individually older documents fail to remain relevant, accurate and even provide conflicting data and direction to the staff and public. We have uncovered several areas where staff is making their own decisions and creating regulations on-the-fly because of conflicting direction between documents or lack of important information in any of the documents. Cushing Terrell was tasked to review and interview users of the Guiding Documents from several vantage points, identify various shortcomings in the documents and make a recommendation on if or how to approach updates to any or all of the existing products. The most current documents are the new zoning code and the Triangle Plan. All other documents seem to have been overtaken by growth and age. We have identified a few problems that have resulted from these events. Obviously, funding is the biggest driving force between doing smaller updates to existing plans or choosing the most in-need updates and updating those. Either of these scenarios continue to invite error, staff frustration, public confusion, and failure to provide residents and the development community clear direction. We recommend that Belgrade consider a more comprehensive step forward in updating its Guiding Documents. We recommend that the City move beyond more pdf-based documents and be a leader in Montana and develop a comprehensive set of documents that is master plan based but most importantly an interactive web-based document that is user friendly for both staff and public. This document is included as an attachment to this RFP (Attachment A) and should serve as a primary reference for the team. 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK The successful team will be expected to complete the following scope of work items, including but not limited to: I. An Inventory and analysis of existing documents to determine priority and degree required of updating. II. An update to all documents, as needed, to reflect clear alignment across the City’s documents with respect to the most recent policies and plans. III. Development of a web-based platform to host, view, and interact with all documents through existing city web-site ( and integrate with site host CivicPlus IV. Development of a creative, public facing GIS-based visualization that overlays geographic document content and allows for of future updates. V. Development of a web-based interface to service the viewing, submission, and review of the City’s Permit & Licensing processes. VI. Prepare a guidebook for the administration/operation of developed platform for relevant City staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 2 GENERAL INFROMATION 2. 1 PREPARATION COSTS The City of Belgrade shall not be responsible for proposal preparation costs, nor for costs including attorney fees associated with any (administrative, judicial, or otherwise) challenge to the determination of the highest-ranked Proposer and/or award of contract and/or rejection of proposal. By submitting a proposal, each Proposer agrees to be bound in this respect and waives all claims to such costs and fees. 2.2 DISPOSITION OF PROPOSALS All materials submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City of Belgrade. One copy shall be retained for the official files of the Public Works Department and will become public record after award of the Contract. 2.3 MODIFICATION/WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS A respondent may withdraw a proposal at any time prior to the final submission date by sending written notification of its withdrawal, signed by an agent authorized to represent the agency. The respondent may thereafter submit a new or modified proposal prior to the final submission date. Modifications offered in any other manner, oral or written, will not be considered. A final proposal cannot be changed or withdrawn after the time designated for receipt, except for modifications requested by the City of Belgrade after the date of receipt and following oral presentations. 2.4 ORAL CHANGE/INTERPRETATION No oral change or interpretation of any provision contained in this RFP is valid whether issued at a pre-proposal conference or otherwise. Written addenda will be issued when changes, clarifications, or amendments to proposal documents are deemed necessary by the City of Belgrade. 2.5 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS The City of Belgrade reserves the right to withdraw this Request for Proposal at any time and makes no representations to this Request for Proposal. The City of Belgrade reserves the right to postpone consideration of the proposals and to reject any or all proposals if determined to be in the best interest of the City without indicating any reasons, therefore. 2.6 ERRORS IN PROPOSAL Proposers or their authorized representatives are expected to fully inform themselves as to the conditions, requirements, and specifications before submitting proposals. Failure to do so will be at the company’s own risk. If an error is made before submitting the proposal, the error should be crossed out, corrections entered and initialed by the person signing the proposal. The City of Belgrade reserves the right to waive any informalities, technical defects, and minor irregularities in proposals received. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 2.7 EXAMINATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Proposers should carefully examine the entire RFP, any addenda thereto, and all related materials and data referenced in the RFP. Proposers should become fully aware of the nature of the Work and the conditions likely to be encountered in performing the Work. 2.8 CONFIDENTIALITY The content of all proposals will be kept confidential until the selection of the Consultant is officially announced. At that time, the selected proposal is open for review. After the award of the Contract, all proposals will then become public information. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS RFP responses must be completed and prepared in a format that provides an insightful, straightforward, and concise understanding of the project and an overview of the capabilities of the submitting firm or team. Additional facts and information other than those listed below may be included if it will help to highlight the qualifications and experience. All materials submitted in response to this RFP shall become the property of the City of Belgrade. Proposals shall not exceed 50 pages in length. Each proposal shall be organized using the following format: 3.1 COVER SHEET A cover letter shall be provided that explains the firm or team’s interest in the project. The letter should contain the name, address, phone number, and email of the person who will serve as the firm/team principal contact with City staff. The letter shall bear the signature of the person having proper authority to make formal commitments on behalf of the firm/team. 3.2 CONSULTANT TEAM The Consultant Team should include the firm or team’s background, location of office/offices from which the work on this project is to be performed. Include names and resumes, responsibilities, related experience, and qualifications of personnel. 3.3 APPROACH / WORK PLAN Submit an outline of the approach to the Scope of Work including a detailed description of the services to be provided and all other relevant information, including the work plan and timetable for project completion. The selected consultant will be required to provide a detailed work plan with each Scope of Work component, estimated hours, and estimated date of completion. Identify all services expected to be provided by the City of Belgrade. Any work recommendations to achieve the project goals beyond the listed scope of work should include a detailed description for justification. 3.4 EXPERIENCE Provide a sampling of projects completed for consideration by the selection team. Special attention should be given to examples that refence the firm or team’s experience in the following: Projects completed that illustrate experience in reviewing and updating large municipal planning and policy documents Similar projects that involve translating planning documents to GIS-based format Projects completed that utilize developing websites and/or interactive web-based platforms for document hosting (please include links to websites) Projects that develop innovative and forward-thinking processes for optimizing future work Explain how these sample projects best suit the firm or team’s ability to perform the work described in this RFP. Describe any challenges you see in implementing the scope of work for this project and how the firm intends to manage that. 3.5 FEE AND SCHEDULE Provide the fee structure and schedule for completing this project. As this project may span multiple budget cycles for the city; the fee structure must be clear in distinguishing the cost for each scope of work item. Additionally, in reference to Scope of Work Item I, a separate fee must ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 be determined for each individual document update. This will apply for each document listed in Section III except the Wastewater Master Plan, Water Master Plan, and Transportation Master Plan whose fee may be combined. Note: For documents currently in development the firm is expected to coordinate with the City of Belgrade to determine the appropriate fee and scope. 3.6 TIMELINE The City of Belgrade anticipates a majority of the project to be completed within approximately, 18 –24-month period. The proposals should include a timeline from the initial contract date to completion. As this project may span multiple budget cycles for the city, please provide the firm or team’s capacity to continue work beyond this approximate period. 3.7 SELECTION PROCESS & EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals should include a letter of interest and should be based on past experience for the type of work and firm or team’s ability to successfully complete the project. The City of Belgrade will review and score proposals from 0 – 100 points based on the evaluation criteria listed below: Qualifications - 30 points Previous Experience - 25 points Approach - 30 points Availability - 15 points The City of Belgrade anticipates conducting interviews with selected firms considered for being awarded the project following preliminary consideration of the above criteria. RFP Process Date Time RFP Invitation Release Date February 15, 2023 5:00pm MST Submission Deadline for Questions and Clarifications March 9, 2023 5:00pm MST Responses to Questions and Clarifications March 23, 2023 5:00pm MST Submission Deadline for Proposal Package April 6, 2023 5:00pm MST ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 4 APPENDIX 4.1 THE CITY OF BELGRADE - WEBSITE The City of Belgrade – Planning & Zoning The City of Belgrade – Engineering The City of Belgrade - Permits & Licenses Website Interactive Zoning Map Interactive Development Map Interactive Belgrade Growth Policy Future Land Use Map 4.2 THE CITY OF BELGRADE - GUIDING DOCUMENTS • Growth Policy (2020) • Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2020) • Transportation Master Plan (2018) • Wastewater Master Plan (2018) • Water Master Plan (2017) • Triangle Community Plan (2020) • Zoning Diagnostic Table (Available April 2023) • Annexation Policy (2022) • Belgrade Subdivision Regulations (2020) • Belgrade Downtown Design Plan (2020) • Triangle and Trail Plan (2021) • Belgrade Zoning Regulations (Update in Progress) 4.3 WEBSITES FOR CONSIDERATION Seattle Streets Illustrated NYC Capital Planning Explorer City of Philadelphia – OpenMaps City of Chattanooga GIS Maps ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 City of Belgrade Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis 6 July 2022 Cushing Terrell ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 2 Cushing Terrell was hired to conduct an overview of Belgrade’s planning documents (Guiding Documents) that the city utilizes to plan and control development, provide municipal services and allow for Growth. These documents include the following: • Growth Policy • Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Transportation Master Plan • Water and Sewer Facility Plan • Downtown Design Plan • Triangle Community Plan • Zoning Diagnostic Table • Annexation Policy • Belgrade Subdivision Regulations • Belgrade Downtown Design Plan The primary purpose of this exercise is to review and investigate the guiding documents, interview staff regarding their use and make recommendations on options for updating the plans. A SWOT assessment is typically an exercise that is geared for a quick analysis of something. SWOT stands for Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. It is often used in the planning world to confirm direction of a planning exercise early in a process. Process Cushing Terrell conducted a four-pronged approach to the SWOT analysis. The process included conducting a survey of Belgrade staff who utilize the documents, CT interviews of individual staff members, conducting a workshop with staff and CT representatives and doing a formal independent review of each guiding document. The SWOT analysis included a look at the following: • Dates/age of each document • How the documents are used by staff and public • Comparison of the style and format of the documents • Potential conflicting information in each document as it relates to others • Clarity and readability of each document Purpose ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 3 Initial survey taken by staff ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 4 Staff Survey Question 1: Rank what guiding document you use most in order of most used to least used If you do not reference or use a document leave it blank. Question 2: From a 30,000’ level, please describe how you use the number 1 ranked guiding document. • The water and sewer master plans are used in public works to guide capital planning and infrastructure improvements. • I answer general zoning questions from the public and I review building site plans for compliance with the zoning regulations. • Zoning regulations are used in daily inquiry’s related to building projects and real estate • Just as a reference. Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2020) Growth Policy (2020) Long Range Transpor tation Plan (2018) Waste-Water Master Plan (2017) Water Master Plan (2017) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Triangle Trails Plan (2021) City of Belgrade Zoning Regulations City of Belgrade Subdivision Regulations Downtown Design Plan (2020) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 8 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 5 Question 3: Rank what guiding document you use most in order of most used to least used If you do not reference or use a document leave it blank. Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2020) Growth Policy (2020) Long Range Transportation Plan (2018) Waste-Water Master Plan (2017) Water Master Plan (2017) Triangle Community Plan (2020) Triangle Trails Plan (2021) City of Belgrade Zoning Regulations City of Belgrade Subdivision Regulations Downtown Design Plan (2020) Never Weekly Daily 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Question 4: Do you cross reference documents in conducting your job? Yes No Staff Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 6 Question 5: Is the process of cross-referencing documents challenging? If so, please describe how. Question 7: If yes, what was the result? Question 8: Where do you find the biggest challenges in working with the City’s plans and guiding documents? • It is, many do not correspond well or have conflicting information.... • Seeking and finding relevant correlating regulations between 2 pdfs pulled up on my computer display is time-consuming and really not efficient. • It can be time consuming flipping back and forth between documents. • No • They are often referred to as “planning documents” and a solution is derived. • We usually have to go with the more strict regulation OR the more understandable description. (“What does Bozeman/Gallatin County do?”) • Generally the more recently adopted document’s standard is used • Very annoyed customers, and city divisions are at odds with each other over planning needs • Planning direction, population growth, conflicting information. • We need some documents updated, but just don’t have the time to do it, bc we are busy using these outdated docs to complete processes. Flipping through pdfs of the final draft of a policy is repetitive but it still takes the same amount of time to find what we are looking for, because we can’t bookmark those pdfs in a meaningful way (or maybe we can, but I never have). • Our subdivision and zoning regulations are very out of date making review difficult • I don’t do much with the City’s guiding documents. I use mostly The Montana mods and city infrastructure standards. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Question 6: Have you ever had instances where the public or a developer has pointed to city documents where conflicting information is directed orlisted? Yes No Staff Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 7 Question 9: Are there any areas of any guiding document that are outdated to your knowledge? Please describe. Question 10: Are there conflicting directions or recommendations from one guiding document to another? Please describe. Question 11: Are there conflicting directions or recommendations from one guiding document to another? Please describe. • Water and wastewater. The parks plan lacks development standards. I think most of the plans have not accounted for our growth. • City of Belgrade Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 5, requirements. But pretty much all of the COB Sub Regs. • Subdivision and Zoning Regs • City impact fees for fire service • The water and sewer master plans seem to be out of date • Often if a plan was performed at an earlier year and then another plan is done later, they do not always match up with the growth or the direction of growth. Accepted plans are not always reflected in the City’s specifications. • COB Sub Regs and COB Design Specs • Yes, between subdivision regulations and City Specs • Water, Sewer, Transportation, Parks..... • Building permit application, Zoning regs, Sub Regs, Property Information Request Form (new and needed. We borrow pretty much every subdivision, exemption, and zoning application from Gallatin Co.) • Subdivision and Zoning Regs • Water Staff Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 8 Question 12: How could Belgrade’s adopted plans be improved? Please explain what type of update would be most helpful next to each plan. • BELGRADE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN (2020) º A stand alone plan focused on the needs of the community reflected in specific and individual park development guidlines. • BELGRADE GROWTH POLICY (2020) º The Future Land Use map could be amended to designate all areas • BELGRADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2018) º Updated routes and classifications transferred into specifications. • BELGRADE WASTE-WATER MASTER PLAN (2017) º New plan to show actual growth and direction, results built into capital improvement program. º Needs to be updated with new plant info • BELGRADE WATER MASTER PLAN (2017) º New plan to show actual growth and direction, results built into capital improvement º Needs to be redone. Data is out-dated • TRIANGLE COMMUNITY PLAN (2020) º More specific with commitment from all parties involved so different areas under differentjurisdictions can have a matched final product. • TRIANGLE TRAILS PLAN (2021) º More specific with commitment from all parties involved so different areas under different jurisdictions can have a matched final product. • CITY OF BE LGRADE ZONING REGULATIONS º Match existing and other plans and specifications. º We are in the process of updating now. º Full update • CITY OF BELGRADE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS º Match existing and other plans and specifications. º To repeat how we update all of our documents, we “align”, or copy the same language as Gallatin Co Regs. º Full Update • BELGRADE DOWNTOWN DESIGN PLAN (2020) º Maybe figure out how much money we have in our TIF fund and come up with a site plan andlist of planned updates, and timeline for completion. Staff Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 9 Some of the themes that flowed through staff interviews, surveys and workshop as well as the Cushing Terrell review included: Knowledge & Education o Improve knowledge base of long-range planning documents • SOPs • Executive summaries • Schedule recurring review/updates o Improve staff understanding of long-range planning document • Long range document vs Design Plan o Gain independence from Gallatin County regulations Format & Tools o Improve format, user friendliness • Mapping • Electronic document • Website • Need for GIS utilization in documents Content & Clarity o Update content to remove conflicts • Trends & growth boundaries should be similar • Need list of specific conflicts • Plans (transportation/water/wastewater) to correspond with city specifications. • Based on the city feedback, subdivision regulations could use the most work to clear up discrepancies. • Follow recommendations Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 10 Communication and interaction between planning and engineering/public works • Currently, planning and public works operate completely separate. There is lit tle-to-no coordination and communication between the two departments. One example used is that public works does not know when applications for annexation are coming in until it is on the city council agenda. • One step Belgrade is taking is establishing a subdivision review committee, where City Engineer is currently leading the effort. • Belgrade currently operates too much from a paper platform rather than a digital platform. • Coordination between Planning and Public Works (PW) historically was more frequent before PW moved. • Belgrade is currently moving its website to Civic Plus platform. • Belgrade does not currently have a capital improvement plan. • Belgrade currently operates too much from a paper platform rather than a digital platform. How does staff use the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan? • City Engineer makes the most use of it. Public works does not look at it other than for looking up road classifications. • Staff meets with MDT once a month for coordination. o What are its most important / most useful elements? • Identifying road classifications. • Ideally this plan could be used to help prioritize capital improvement projects. Public works is uncertain if this is a function with the current plan. o What areas are cumbersome, irrelevant, misinterpreted, contradictory? • Growth boundary is not consistent with other plans, but otherwise no feedback on areas of the plan needing improvement. o Does the city currently utilize or incorporate the airport master plan? • There is little coordination with the airport other looking at the traffic data. Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 11 Other Comments/Observations • Consider coordinating the “Study Area” of the LRTP with the “Planning Area” of the water and wastewater plans. • The plan lists some goals of the LRTP. Goal #3 suggests consistency and coordination between land use and transportation planning. Consider including the water & wastewater master plans as well. • Goal 4 to provide a safe and secure transportation system does not seem to be a very high priority throughout the LRTP. • Plan mentioned the Belgrade Area Advisory Committee (pg 16). Is this committee active? How is the committee input being utilized in preparing for plan updates? • The Belgrade Transportation Plan website mentioned on pg 17 does not appear to be active. Is there any other current platform for community engagement? • Employment (pg 24) – would be good to see stats on how many residents work in Belgrade vs how many travel outside of Belgrade. Also how many travel into Belgrade. This section does not really cover Belgrade employment, but rather the county as a whole. Also, it would be good to gather the latest information on remote work employees as this has played a major role in traffic volumes. • Addition study needed on growth trend areas (pg 60) to reflect current patterns and development action. • Consider adding priority levels, triggers for implementation, and potential funding sources for all facility upgrade recommendations (TSM, MSN, SW, SUP, BIKE, BB, SPOT). The LRTP plan may need a more solidified implementation plan in order for city and development community to utilize. • The plan does not appear to recommend maintenance of transportation infrastructure other than the need for a program. • Consider a more thorough coordination and timing of updates with airport plan and MDT. • Where are the appendices? Could not find these anywhere. • Are goals from beginning section addressed? How are Goal 5- Support Economic Vitality of the Community, & Goal 7- Promote a Financially Sustainable Transportation Plan being addressed in the plan? • More recent work from home trends should be considered, mostly in transportation plan but others as well. Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 12 How does staff use the 2017 Water Master Plan? Occasionally public works will use the plan to look at usage data and existing infrastructure (wells, towers, etc) o What are its most important / most useful elements? • Ideally, the water master plan could be used for planning for CIPs and establishment of new systems. The current plan makes-an-attempt at this but does not prioritize this well or layout an implementation plan for the city. • Belgrade would like to be able to pull recent data from plan when preparing the city standards and specifications. o Other comments/observations • Growth components are vague and out of date. It was anticipated that there would be more growth to the south, but it is now trending to the west instead which the city is not prepared. Other Comments/Observations • Population projections are inconsistent with transportation plan. These should all align. • Consider developing plan to implement means of disinfection if required by DEQ • Water plan has summarized priority list of improvements with approximate costs but seems to lack triggers for implementation and a plan for funding. Same goes for implementing all of the new wells shown on Figure 7-14 • Need plan for obtaining water rights for new wells. • The master plan summarizes and tabulates water loss through leakage and unmetered uses, but need plan for addressing this issue. How does staff use the 2018 Wastewater Master Plan? o What are its most important / most useful elements? • The most useful part of this plan is looking at population growth data, and existing lift station locations/capacities. o What areas are cumbersome, irrelevant, misinterpreted, contradictory? • The plan needs to reflect the new capacities with the new treatment plant installed. • The city would like to be able to avoid a new individual lift station for each development that is proposed, but rather plan for a large one that future developments can tie into. o Other comments/observations • Sync up planning area with transportation plan or vise-versa Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 13 Other comments: • Public Works hope for updates to the master plans would be to really tailor it to the city and avoid copy/paste from the previous plan. Needs ingenuity, and expertise. If Belgrade is going to hire a firm to prepare the plan, they want a plan that they would not be able to be prepared internally. • Parks plan is too abstract for public works and it lacks details on implementation. • Currently, the guiding documents are mainly used to find out how we arrived where we are at now and as a historical resource. They are not very useful for the development that is currently in for review (current growth patterns). • Water and wastewater master plan preparation would be of great help had it started about six months ago. • The transportation plan is mainly used for functional classification reference. More recent traffic impact studies and the airport master plan are more commonly used as references with current development. • The engineering/technical master plans could be separated out from the “single master plan” document (which would be quite large) to get them going as their need is immediate to have more defined, guiding documents for where water and sewer trunk mains need to be installed, roadway designs to be used for new development, and capital improvement planning for the city to begin budgeting for more substantial improvement projects. • Belgrade will also be in need of storm water master planning with upcoming MS4 requirements. • Generally, PW reviews all Belgrade site plans for compliance with city specs. • Planning generally works with the Growth Policy Plan, subdivision regulations and zoning. • Planning does not work with the Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan nor the Transportation Plan. • Belgrade has amended the current Growth Policy (GP) several times. • The Triangle Plan has been adopted as an appendix to the Growth Policy. • Belgrade’s Subdivision Regulations are outdated and cumbersome to cite appropriate sections. They are not as current as county subdivision regulations. • Growth Policy document needs a more detailed table of contents in-order-to quickly reference sections. Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 14 Other comments: • Belgrade needs quick link FAQ for site development and PW design specifications. • PW design specifications are in two documents that often conflict. They should be combined into a single document. • During the building review process multiple staff are reviewing submittals and passing around a single sheet of paper for an approval process. This should be digital. • All plans should have similar flow. Currently transportation plan reads completely different and is tailored to a different audience. • Is there a public forum for continuous discussion on updates? • Consider consolidating to only cover history, population, growth, demographics, etc one time. • Combining also allows sync of improvement recommendations Hurdles to get to a better position on a smoother more usable set of guiding documents include: • Need to do a better job with transportation road network. • Water system needs a substantial update. There are currently pressure problems and it is unknown how far south the city will be able to deliver water. • All utilities are developer driven and “payback agreements” are normal. • Plans need a better up-front policy to make requirements of developers less subjective. • Subdivision Regulations need parks requirements to be commensurate with density also what is required for park development. • Permit applications are out of date and cumbersome. • Belgrade currently use Gallatin County Planning documents for permit applications. Finding Themes ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 15 Workshop Survey As part of the initial interaction with staff, Cushing Terrell developed a survey and requested staff to answer questions. The following is the survey results: ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis Transportation Master Plan (20%) Belgrade Subdivision Regulations (60%) Growth Policy (20%) Which of Belgrade’s guiding documents is MOST in need of an update? Triangle Community Plan (40%) Belgrade Subdivision Regulations (20%) Transportation Master Plan (20%) Growth Policy (20%) Which of Belgrade’s guiding documents is SECOND MOST in need of an update? Annexation Policy (40%) Belgrade Subdivision Regulations (20%) Transportation Master Plan (20%) Zoning Diagnostic Table (20%) Which of Belgrade’s guiding documents is THIRD MOST in need of an update? Workshop Survey ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis Workshop Survey Which is the most important improvement needed in updating the City’s guiding documents? User-friendly documents (20%) Consistency across all documents (20%) All of the above (60%) Growth Policy (20%) Annexation Policy (40%) Zoning Diagnostic Table (40%) Which guiding document do you use the most on a regular basis? ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis Workshop Survey Yes, through a series of tweaks and partial updates, Belgrade can bring its level of service to the public to an acceptable level No, Belgrade would be better served by doing a wholesale update to its guiding documents (100%) 8 out of 10 (60%) Belgrade recognized inevitable growth and became a leader in Montana by creating a forward-thinking web-based platform for all its guiding documents. (80%) Can the city do an adequate job by doing partial updates to guiding documents over a period of years and deliver appropriate service to the public? As city staff, you know your city better than most others. Recognizing that funding is always an issue with communities, on a scale of 1-10, please rate the general level of priority of updating the City’s guiding documents If one assumes that the City’s guiding documents need to be updated, select the answer that best re flects your vision for pro ceeding with a document update. 6 out of 10 (20%) 9 out of 10 (20%) Belgrade retained its sense of small community and personal touch while updating its city guiding documents. (20%) ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 19 On June 24, 2022 Cushing Terrell held a workshop with Belgrade staff to review draft findings and to continue to discuss the themes of the guiding document review and to expand on improvement recommendations to staff operations, permitting etc. Major discussion points of the workshop included the following: Population diversity • Bring new expectations of city • Different ideas of what is appropriate service from the city º Snow Removal º Road conditions º Ready-made parks, no dollars to construct • City council has changed much in past few years • Planning board has had some changes Road network expansions • Substandard infrastructure-county roads, lack of curb and gutters. Developers -three types • Out of state developers are profit driven and bring in their own engineers and sometimes attorneys who say “we are just going to do it this way” • Historic old-guard developers tend to be local and understand how to develop in Belgrade • Out-of-state developers who bring in local engineers. Development • The City lacks review fees. The city is lacking true fee structure on plan review and currently there is no engineering review fee. • Impact fees are still not enough- must have a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan • Stormwater requirements are severely lacking given MS4 requirements in 2-3 years • Today, development applications typically take 6-9 months for approval. Existing documents • Limited usability • Standard city street sections are needed. In recent past city staff has had to make up what a minor arterial street includes and is configured. • Currently the city is bogged down in utilizing paper forms instead of web-based applications. Workshop ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 20 GIS • City has applied for an ARCGIS Enterprise License • City currently has GIS capabilities but the system is not mature. • There is a need to create an interactive Zoning Map where anyone including the public can click on an address and all information would populate. • There is also a need to create and interactive Development Map Staff desires a single Future Map of what Belgrade will look like in 20 years. “ The last thing we want is to have the public thinking we don’t know what we are doing.“ Workshop ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 21 Few municipalities across the country have seen growth rates similar to Belgrade over the past several years. Belgrade is growing both from added population relocating to Montana as well as people moving out of Bozeman in-order-to afford a home or even an apartment. This significant growth rate has compounded an existing issue with the City’s planning documents or Guiding Documents. Nearly every planning document has been proven outdated relative to growth totals and patterns. Documents like the transportation, water and waste-water master plan are in urgent need of revisions. The City’s subdivision regulations are older and more cumbersome than Gallatin County’s. Historically, planning in Montana is random and sometimes done begrudgingly. Most often the need to plan is outweighed financially by the need to “do”. Limited funds naturally go to the most urgent needs. As planning documents age or are updaed individually older documents fail to remain relevant, accurate and even provide conflicting data and direction to the staff and public. We have uncovered several areas where staff is making their own decisions and creating regulations on-the-fly because of conflicting direction between documents or lack of important information in any of the documents. Cushing Terrell’s task was to review and interview users of the Guiding Documents from several vantage points, identify various shortcomings in the documents and make a recommendation on if or how to approach updates to any or all of the existing products. The most current documents are the new zoning code and the Triangle Plan. All other documents seem to have been overtaken by growth and age. We have identified a few problems that have resulted from these events. Obviously, funding is the biggest driving force between doing smaller updates to existing plans or choosing the most in-need updates and updating those. Either of these scenarios continue to invite error, staff frustration, public confusion and failure to provide residents and the development community clear direction. We recommend that Belgrade consider a more comprehensive step forward in updating its Guiding Documents. We recommend that the City move beyond more pdf-based documents and be a leader in Montana and develop a comprehensive set of documents that is master plan based but most importantly and interactive web-based document that is user friendly for both staff and public. Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- cushingterrell.com City of Belgrade I SWOT Analysis 22 We see a program that is an integral part of the city’s new web site and combines data and detail with interactive referencing across documents. The effort should include plans for incorporating new FAQ’s, digital permitting and staff review platforms as a part of the new “master plan”. Many great examples exist in larger communities such as Chattanooga.gov. We see the key to developing this major update is to start from a position that plans for the document to be based on a web platform and not necessary a “paper plan”. As a web-based plan, modifications to sections can be accomplished much easier and keeping the individual sections can be easily updated on a regular basis. While the initial cost may be substantial relative to individually updated projects, the effort is likely to take at least 18-24 months to complete allowing funding to be support ed over 2-3 budgeting cycles. Recommendations