[PAGE 1]
WHITEFISH CITY COUNCIL
March 23, 2026
7:10 P.M.
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Muhlfeld called the meeting to order. Councilors present were Feury, Caltabiano, Davis,
Sweeney, and Norton. Councilor Qunell was absent. City Staff present were, City Clerk Howke, City
Manager Meeker, City Attorney Jacobs, Planning and Building Director Taylor, Public Works Director
Workman, Parks and Recreation Director Butts, Police Chief Kelch, Deputy Fire Chief Pederson, and Long-
Ranger Planner Tiefenbach. Approximately 40 people were in the audience and 18 attended virtually.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Muhlfeld asked his friend Walter to lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Muhlfeld announced there was some misinformation in case those that are attending regarding
misinformation that triplexes, and fourplexes were to be added to the Heritage Urban Neighborhood place
type on Somers Avenue, Columbia Avenue and Park Avenue. That is not the case. Those uses are not
designated or recommended in the proposed updated growth policy for consideration by the council this
evening.
3) COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC– (This time is set aside for the public to comment on items that
are either on the agenda, but not a public hearing or on items not on the agenda. City officials do not respond during
these comments but may respond or follow up later on the agenda or at another time. The mayor has the option of
limiting such communications to three minutes depending on the number of citizens who want to comment and the
length of the meeting agenda)
YouTube Video 3:59
Mayre Flowers updated the Council on two issues. First, Citizens for a Better Flathead has filed a
lawsuit against Flathead County over alleged violations of the Lakeshore Protection Act at the Whitefish
Lake “blast site,” where they believe the county is improperly approving after-the-fact permits. She submitted
their press release for the record.
Second, she expressed concern about the county’s recent decision to allow gravity-fed septic systems
instead of requiring pressure-dosed systems, which she views as a setback for water quality. She submitted
her organization’s findings and noted that she has asked the Health Board to reconsider this change on April
16, potentially treating gravity systems as deviations requiring engineering review. She encouraged the
Council to look into the issue further.
Mayor Muhlfeld amended the agenda to include Communications from Mayor and City
Council to be added after the Public Hearing.
CONSENT AGENDA (The consent agenda is a means of expediting routine matters that require the Council’s
action. Debate does not typically occur on consent agenda items. Any member of the Council may remove any item
for debate. Such items will typically be debated and acted upon prior to proceeding to the rest of the agenda.)
a) Minutes from March 16, 2026, Regular Meeting (p.55)
YouTube Video 8:32
Councilor Davis made a motion, seconded by Councilor Feury to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. The motion carried.

[PAGE 2]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
4) PUBLIC HEARINGS (Items will be considered for action after public hearings) (Resolution No. 07-33 establishes
a 30-minute time limit for applicant’s land use presentations.)
a) Resolution No. 26-__; A Resolution to adopt the 2045 Vision Whitefish Community Plan (p.57)
i) Public Comment – Written public comment received prior to publication of the packet.
These comments are acknowledged as part of the public record but, due to the size, are not
included in the full packet PDF.
YouTube Video 9:08
Long-Range Planner Alan Tiefenbach clarified that misinformation was circulating about the
Heritage Urban Neighborhood place type in the “Avenues” area. A flyer incorrectly claimed that triplexes,
fourplexes, and similar housing types were being added to that area. He explained that no such changes were
proposed, and those housing types are not allowed there. The confusion led to a large number of emails.
Councilor Norton then asked why multi-unit housing appears in the Compact Suburban place type.
Director Taylor explained that this category reflects areas already developed with attached housing—such as
Monterra and Alta Views—and that multi-family housing has long been considered appropriate in those
neighborhoods.
YouTube Video 14:03
Mayor Muhlfeld opened the Public Hearing.
Staff received over 100 letters of public comment between February 25th and March 23rd.
Richard Hildner, 5th Street, submitted a neighborhood petition asking the Council to keep the Heritage
Urban Neighborhood place type for the area around O’Brien, Lupfer, and Central Avenues. The petition
requests matching land-use characteristics with the nearby “Avenues” neighborhood and asks that Spokane
Avenue (Fourth to Sixth) also remain designated Heritage Urban, noting its mix of historic homes and small
offices. It also asks the City to recognize Baker Avenue (Fourth to the river) as a different place type due to
its non-residential uses. The petition includes 41 respondents representing 46 homes and 4 ADUs.
He explained that the group is concerned because the area was briefly changed to a Heritage
Downtown designation without much notice. They strongly urge the Council to keep the Heritage Urban
designation and note that triplexes and fourplexes are not allowed under that place type, which they believe
is important for protecting the neighborhood’s character.
Jon Heberling, Citizen for Better Flathead board member, raised two main concerns: expanding
commercial uses into residential areas and allowing fourplexes or sixplexes citywide. He noted that earlier
drafts encouraged mixed-use commercial in many neighborhoods, but those references were removed by the
Planning Commission and consultants. He warned that a council member could still reintroduce them. He
argued there is no demonstrated need for more commercial space, pointing out existing vacancies and large
areas already designated for commercial use.
He also cautioned that adding commercial uses in residential neighborhoods would increase traffic,
noise, and parking issues, and could negatively affect property values. He referenced strong neighborhood
opposition at a recent Planning Commission meeting.
On housing density, he said the growth policy still includes language supporting diverse housing types
“throughout the city.” If fourplexes are not intended everywhere, he recommended removing that wording.
2

[PAGE 3]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
Leo Keane, Pine Place, expressed concern that state-level political pressure to rapidly increase
housing is pushing Whitefish toward overbuilding and sprawl. He argued that simply building more homes
will not solve housing issues and risks damaging the community’s quality of life, natural environment, and
small-town character. He noted that land, infrastructure, and the valley’s limited capacity must be considered
before encouraging large-scale growth.
He criticized the commercial sprawl along Highway 93 and warned that Vision 2045 could accelerate
similar development if not approached carefully. Instead of expanding outward, they encouraged focusing
on thoughtful infill development, protecting open space, and maintaining what makes Whitefish special. He
pointed to recent apartment projects as examples of appropriate infill and urged the community to grow
slowly and intentionally so Whitefish can remain “The Last Best Place.”
Annaka Egan, Cottonwood Court, thanked the Council, city staff, the Planning Commission, czb, and
all community members who participated in the process. She appreciated the time and effort involved and
highlighted how valuable it was to hear a wide range of perspectives — from long-time residents to high
school students and first-time speakers. She expressed gratitude to everyone who showed up and contributed
their viewpoints.
Pat La Tourelle, Lupfer Avenue, supported Richard Hildner’s comments and reminded the Council
that the Planning Commission recommended keeping her neighborhood designated as Heritage Urban
Neighborhood after hearing residents’ concerns. She is worried the Planning Department may consider
changing that designation and urged the Council to honor the Commission’s recommendation.
She explained that Riverside Park is heavily used year-round and should not be surrounded by tall
mixed-use commercial buildings. She believes adding more commercial uses would harm the character of
the neighborhood, disrupt the residential feel, and reduce the charm that visitors enjoy when walking to the
park. She also expressed concern about empty buildings downtown and asked the Council to listen to
residents and keep the Heritage Urban designation.
Rick Rissman, Kalispell Avenue, also own a long-term rental on Dakota Avenue, said his
neighborhood previously dealt with zoning inconsistencies and successfully petitioned the City to fix them.
He feels similar issues are happening again. He does not believe adding triplexes and fourplexes is the right
solution for housing needs and emphasized that Whitefish’s unique neighborhoods are its real value. In his
view, these areas should not be sacrificed for higher-density development.
Jamie Goguen, Washington Avenue, said she loves Whitefish and emphasized that people will
continue moving here because of its appeal, often outbidding locals. She urged the Council to focus on
housing solutions that support workers—like partnering with nonprofits and allowing more downtown
density so people can live near their jobs. She believes fourplexes on single lots are reasonable and that
housing should be prioritized over parking concerns. She stressed the need to plan for how locals, future
generations, and essential workers will be able to find homes as informal community support systems become
strained.
Sean Houston, Somers Avenue, who recently moved back, said he is concerned about traffic and
parking in the neighborhood, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. He worries that the new
development on the snow lot will add more cars, trailers, and overflow parking onto the street. He asked the
City to realistically consider the parking needs and how the added congestion will affect school traffic.
3

[PAGE 4]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
Rissa Cloud, Colorado Avenue, said she believes everyone is talking about sustainability and urged
the Council to protect families and neighborhoods by keeping growth small. She also noted that the
implementation plan is meant to be concise and actively used.
Mayre Flowers submitted written comments and added two brief points. She thanked Leo Keane for
comments she felt reflected broad community sentiment and asked the Council to keep that perspective in
mind. She also suggested adding a statement in the resolution acknowledging that the state-imposed MLUPA
framework limits the community’s ability to shape affordable housing solutions and is not widely supported
locally.
In her written comments, she urged the Council to consider how much growth is truly appropriate
and to adopt conservative population targets. She encouraged prioritizing homeownership over high-density
rentals, protecting neighborhood character, and removing the policy statement on page 154 that supports
diverse housing types “throughout the city,” which she believes undermines neighborhood protections.
She asked the Council to prevent retail expansion into residential areas, strengthen policies that
support a healthy downtown, and ensure growth pays its own way through strong concurrency requirements.
She emphasized the need to recognize physical and environmental limits on infrastructure and to prioritize
walkability and active transportation.
Finally, she stressed that the City is legally required to adopt a detailed implementation plan—one
the public can review—before finalizing the growth policy, and she urged the Council not to move forward
without it.
Andrew Strong, Central Avenue, speaking virtually, thanked the Council, Planning Commission, and
staff for their hard work. He submitted written comments on behalf of eight Central Avenue property owners.
He highlighted two contrasting properties: the vacant lot at 5th & Central, where a proposed luxury fourplex
never materialized, and 405 Central, a historic home beautifully restored by Leo Keane. He said the restored
home shows why protecting historic neighborhoods matters.
He warned that without strong place-type designations and zoning “brakes,” more larger multi-unit
projects could replace historic homes, harming the character that draws people to Whitefish. He urged the
Council to protect these neighborhoods so Central Avenue doesn’t become lined with quads and loses its
charm.
Rhonda Fitzgerald, Lupfer Avenue, explained that the idea of allowing triplexes was added at the last
minute to the Suburban Neighborhood place type, which covers a large single-family area in Whitefish. She
wanted to clarify that this is where the triplex allowance came from and that it is now included in the current
document.
Mayor Muhlfeld temporarily closed the public comment for the evening while keeping the public
hearing open for the April 6th meeting. He turned matters over to the Council for recommended revisions of
the 2045 Vision Whitefish Community Plan.
YouTube Video 58:01
HOUSING ELEMENT
Councilor Davis – page 396 and 397 of the packet, page 22 and 23 of the red marked version of the
plan, Supporting a Robust Economy. We support local businesses retention and and find innovative ways to
4

[PAGE 5]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
and encourage a diverse year-round economic base to accommodate current and future commercial
enterprises while protecting our unique character and qualities through policies supporting moderate
economic growth for our community. We will be self sufficient and provide a full range of goods, services,
and jobs. Davis made a motion to amend the statement to read: We support local business retention and
expansion, encouraging diverse year-round economic base, and growing the local economy while
protecting the quality of life for the residents who sustain it. The correction carried.
Davis – page 28 of the plan, 403 of the packet, Housing Element, Goal 1, Objective b (iii) Exploring
the reduction of opens space requirements as part of the Legacy Homes program or when proposed housing
developments are designed for targeted income levels. Davis said open space is important to many people
and noted that reducing open-space requirements hasn’t been discussed. He suggested it could be one possible
incentive for developers in exchange for legacy or affordable housing units, but emphasized it is only one
option among many. Davis made a motion to amend the statement to read: Supporting and enhancing
the Legacy Homes Program as a key driver of deed restricted affordable housing. Periodically re-evaluate
incentives offered to achieve the appropriate balance between the benefit to the developer and the
community benefits obtained. The correction carried.
Davis – Page 28 of the plan, 403 of the packet, Housing Element, Goal 1, Objective b (iv) Providing
pre-approved building plans for smaller homes that meet requirements for compatibility with different
neighborhoods. He said that as a home builder, pre-approving building plans is very difficult in practice
because every lot and design is different. In his view, it’s generally not possible to preapprove all aspects of
a plan, even though stock plans are easy to find online. Davis made a motion to strike Goal 1, Objective b
(iv) Providing pre-approved building plans for smaller homes that meet requirements for compatibility
with different neighborhoods. Norton asked whether Davis’s comments meant he opposed modular or tiny
homes. Davis said no—his concern was about the City creating pre-designed building plans, which he feels
don’t work well because every lot and project is different. Norton noted the Council has discussed offering
standard plans for ADUs to reduce costs and asked whether removing this language would eliminate that
option. Davis said possibly but added that ADU designs have become more flexible and varied, which he
views positively. Norton suggested keeping the language in case the City wants to offer ADU plans in the
future. Davis maintained his original concern. The correction carried on 4-1 voted, Norton voting in
opposition.
Davis – Page 28 of plan, 403 of packet, Housing element, Goal 1, Objective c (ii) Exploring a limit
on the total numbers of permitted short-term rentals. He said this is a difficult issue, but noted the city already
limits short-term rentals by restricting where they can be located. He believes it’s important to emphasize
that the community does not want further expansion of short-term rentals. Davis made a motion to amend
to read: Goal 1, Objective c (ii) Exploring a limit on the total numbers of permitted short-term rentals.Do
not expand land area where short term rentals are permitted. Norton asked the City Attorney whether
limiting short-term rentals could create legal issues. Attorney Jacobs explained that several years ago the
Council discussed setting a cap, and while some cities do cap short-term rentals, Whitefish has historically
limited them by restricting the districts where they are allowed. The correction carried.
Davis – Page 29 of the plan, 404 of the packet, Housing Element, Goal 2, Objective c Encourage
developers to address and account for the housing needs of displaced residents whenever new projects are
developed in place of existing. He said he dislikes redevelopment that removes existing housing and feels
that language encouraging developers to act doesn’t have much real impact. Davis made a motion to amend
to read: Consider the adoption of a no net loss housing policy to avoid losing housing units to
redevelopment. A no-net-loss housing policy means that when a property is redeveloped, the number of
housing units cannot be reduced. This policy is already included in the city’s housing strategic plan. The
correction carried.
5

[PAGE 6]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
Davis – Page 30 of the plan, 405 of the packet, Housing Element Goal 3:
Objectives c. Create a technical assistance program to help homeowners navigate repair and
accessibility projects and understand available funding and regulatory requirements.
Objective d. Provide education and resources for grants or low-interest loans for low-to-moderate-
income homeowners to make critical repairs and accessibility modifications.
Objective e. Preserve existing affordable rental housing by providing resources for owners to
refinance, maintain units and offer long-term affordability. Explore allowing current multi-family
and naturally affordable rentals to qualify for the Whitefish Legacy Homes Program.
Davis said these items involve functions he considers important, but he does not believe they are
responsibilities of the City. He made a motion to strike Objective c, d, and e. Norton said these programs
are essential for helping existing homeowners stay in their homes and should remain. Sweeney clarified that
Davis doesn’t oppose the ideas themselves, just believes they aren’t city responsibilities. Davis said such
programs are better suited for the Housing Authority or nonprofits. Manager Meeker noted a similar program
once existed through the Housing Authority but funding has since ended. She suggested the language could
be reframed to “encourage housing partners” rather than assigning the responsibility to the City. Sweeney
agreed.
Goal 3 Objective c Encourage our housing partners to:
i. Create a technical assistance program to help homeowners navigate repair and
accessibility projects and understand available funding and regulatory
requirements.
ii. Provide education and resources for grants or low-interest loans for low-to-
moderate-income homeowners to make critical repairs and accessibility
modifications.
iii. Preserve existing affordable rental housing by providing resources for owners to
refinance, maintain units and offer long-term affordability. Explore allowing
current multi-family and naturally affordable rentals to qualify for the Whitefish
Legacy Homes Program.
Fuery Goal 3 Objective a. Encourage ongoing property maintenance and promote reinvestment and
improvements in established neighborhoods by bringing substandard housing and unmaintained properties
into compliance with city codes. He said he cannot support this because enforcing decay ordinances has
proven nearly impossible, even when such rules already exist. He noted past attempts have shown the City
has little ability to make them work. Feury made a motion to strike Objective a. Encourage ongoing
property maintenance and promote reinvestment and improvements in established neighborhoods by
bringing substandard housing and unmaintained properties into compliance with city codes. Norton
questioned removing the item, noting some decayed homes pose fire and safety risks and the City has
discussed finding solutions. Meeker explained the City has no decay ordinance, only state fire-hazard tools,
and that enforcing demolition requirements would be punitive and difficult. Feury said the issue is important
but doesn’t belong in the growth policy. Sweeney agreed the City currently lacks the authority to address
these properties but suggested rewording the objective to focus on exploring ways to gain the tools needed
6

[PAGE 7]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
rather than removing it entirely. Motion to amend Objectives c, d, and e to sub-Objective c. Encourage
our housing partners to: and strike Objective a, carried 4-1 Councilor Norton voting in opposition.
Davis – page 31 of the plan, page 406 of the packet, Goal 4, Objective c (i) Reallocation of resort tax
revenues (such as reducing or eliminating reimbursement of resort tax for housing used for second homes or
short-term rentals) to increase city funding for needed housing. He explained that the City’s affordable
housing funding comes from two sources—resort tax and mill levies—and said he planned to propose
rewriting the section to reflect this broader picture. Davis made a motion to amend Goal 4, Objective c (i)
to read: Periodically re-evaluate resort tax allocation and mill levies to match housing funds produced to
housing funds needed. He said the City dedicates certain funding to housing, but the needed amount may
change over time, so it should be regularly reevaluated. Caltabiano and Sweeney agreed with the concept but
felt detailed funding formulas don’t belong in the growth policy. They suggested keeping the goal broad and
focusing on exploring different revenue allocations. Davis said he mainly wants future councils to continually
consider housing funding needs. The group discussed simplifying the language, with suggestions such as
referencing reallocation of revenue streams or specifically resort tax revenues. After some discussion
council agreed unanimously to keep the language as presented, with no change.
Davis, page 31 of the plan, page 406 of the packet, Goal 4, Objective d. Explore opportunities to
allow for expedited zoning and /or subdivision variances for developments of 100% deed-restricted
affordable housing units. Davis made a motion to move to Goal 1, as Objective f. and to amend to read:
Explore opportunities to allow for expedited zoning approvals and/or subdivision variances for
developments of 100% deed-restricted affordable housing projects. units. The moton carried.
YouTube Video 1:34:34
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Davis raised several questions. First, he asked why the new growth policy doesn’t address past
concerns about sewer-area development and a potential bridge connection, which previously limited growth.
Staff explained the issue is complex, has been debated for years, and the current policy keeps the language
broad without specifying a bridge location.
He then asked about extending 7th Street, and staff confirmed it is feasible.
Finally, he asked whether the policy should address the ongoing conflict with the state over Highway
93 planning. Staff said that issue is already covered in the 2019 transportation plan and continues to be
discussed with MDT.
Feury, page 38 of the plan, 417 of the packet, Goal 2, Objective a. Vehicular speeds should be reduced
as appropriate throughout the community, and complete street strategies should be incorporated. He
questioned why reducing vehicle speeds is listed as a goal since most of town is already 25 mph. Staff
explained the idea came from past “drop the five” discussions and safety planning. Some felt the goal was
redundant because similar language already appears elsewhere in the policy. Others noted it may be better
placed under safety-focused goals. After discussion, they agreed it is duplicative and should be removed,
since the concept is already covered under Goal 1.Feury made a motion to strike Goal 2, Objective a.
Vehicular speeds should be reduced as appropriate throughout the community, and complete street
strategies should be incorporated. The motion carried 4-1, Councilor Norton voting in opposition.
Feury – page 38 of the plan, page 417 of the packet, Goal 2, Objective f. Discourage new subdivision
development on Big Mountain which relies on unimproved secondary emergency access which does not med
7

[PAGE 8]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
city or county road standards. He argued that discouraging subdivisions outside city limits isn’t within the
City’s authority and doesn’t belong in the transportation section. Davis agreed, noting the issue appears again
in the hazards section, where he suggested alternative wording focused on supporting County efforts and
reviewing egress during any future annexation. Both felt the City cannot control subdivisions in that area and
the topic is already addressed in the transportation plan. Fuery made a motion to strike Goal 2, Objective f.
Discourage new subdivision development on Big Mountain which relies on unimproved secondary
emergency access which does not med city or county road standards. The motion carried 4-1, Councilor
Norton voting in opposition.
Feury, page 38 of the plan, page 417 of the packet, Goal 2, Objective d. Pursue and prioritize
opportunities for alternative access to Birch Point Drive and across the railroad yard separating north and
south Whitefish. He said the street in question serves only a handful of homes, already has an emergency-only
egress via the Sky Park bridge, and shouldn’t be a priority for major infrastructure like a tunnel or overpass.
If any new crossing were prioritized, he believes East Second would make more sense. Sweeney agreed.
Feury made a motion to strike Goal 2, Objective d. Pursue and prioritize opportunities for alternative
access to Birch Point Drive and across the railroad yard separating north and south Whitefish. The
motion carried 4-1, Norton voting in opposition.
Norton motion to add an Objective: Map and sign wildlife crossings and mitigate lethal impacts
as able on major arterials. She added the wildlife-crossing goal because protecting wildlife is a public
concern and she didn’t see it addressed elsewhere. Staff noted wildlife crosses almost everywhere in town,
making mapping difficult, and that FWP would likely lead such efforts. Others pointed out the growth policy
already includes broader wildlife-management goals, including creating a wildlife management plan that
would cover issues like crossings. Councilor Norton withdrew her motion to add that language.
Norton made a motion to add an Objective to Goal 1 – Investigate downtown bypass options. She
said the community missed its chance years ago to create a bypass but wants to keep the idea in the plan as a
future option due to congestion and safety. Workman cautioned against including it because MDT has made
it clear they will not build new lane miles and adding it could undermine other goals. Meeker added that a
bypass is financially unrealistic and unlikely to ever be an MDT priority. Caltabiano supported Norton’s
desire to keep the option open. Caltabiano amended the language to read: The city should work with the
state to evaluate future bypass options. Norton accepted that amended language. The motion carried 3-
2, Councilors Feury and Sweeney voting in opposition.
Norton made a motion to add an Objective to Goal 1 – Baker/Spokane MDT plan to expand to
three lanes and create a protected bike path. Muhlfeld said the bypass issue is already addressed in the
adopted transportation plan and doesn’t need to be repeated in the growth policy. Workman noted MDT
proposed a three-lane design in the past, but the City rejected it, making the topic complicated to reintroduce
without public input. Norton asked if the plan was still active, and staff clarified that the City and MDT have
not reached agreement because it wasn’t the design the City wanted. Norton withdrew her motion.
Caltabiano said the growth policy must stay consistent throughout and noted a larger issue: the
housing assessment calls for 2,100 new units, but the designated infill areas cannot accommodate that
number. If annexation is limited only to preferred areas, the plan effectively pushes the city toward sprawl,
because the stated housing goal cannot be met under the current growth-policy framework.
Caltabiano – page 39 of the plan, page 418 of the packet Goal 3 Recognize the transportation – land
use relationship and associated impacts and encourage infill and mixed use-compact development patterns
over development which results in efficient or excessive transportation infrastructure requirements.
Caltabiano made a motion to revert “compact” to “mixed use”. He noted that “compact” isn’t defined in
8

[PAGE 9]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
the document, while “mixed use” is a standard planning term that will appear throughout. Davis said
mixed-use will likely require a longer discussion later but is comfortable with the current language and
doesn’t see it as a top priority everywhere. Caltabiano agreed, saying this is a minor instance and the topic
will come up more in other sections. Caltabiano withdrew his motion.
Caltabiano – page 40 of the plan, page 419 of the packet Goal 3 text box The city should prioritize
compact, mixed use and infill development in appropriate areas already served by adequate infrastructure
by placing residential, commercial, schools and job creating uses within close proximity. and encouraging
the integration of residential and commercial uses. He said the language sets an unnecessary tone in the
transportation section and suggested reverting to staff’s version. Sweeney disagreed, saying he supports
adding housing in existing commercial areas but does not support adding new commercial uses in residential
neighborhoods. Caltabiano argued the community’s vision includes some neighborhood-level commercial
uses and shouldn’t be dismissed. Davis said mixed-use appears only in a few areas and is better addressed
later in the land-use section. Norton also opposed the motion, saying she has concerns with both “mixed use”
and “compact,” and prefers simpler language like prioritizing infill development. Caltabiano withdrew his
motion.
Muhlfeld asked Caltabiano’s perspective regarding Goal 3, Objective o. Consider a study in the area
surrounding the Whitefish Airport to determine future needs and potential restriction on a full range of
mitigation options. And Objective p. Encourage the State of Montana to facilitate a study of potential local
impacts related to future airport expansion and a full range of mitigation options, on page 41 of the plan,
page 420 of the packet. Muhlfeld noted the City doesn’t control the airstrip and the surrounding lots are
already built out, so studying it would serve no real purpose. Staff said the idea came from public comments
opposing a hangar permit. Both Muhlfeld and Caltabiano agreed the study would be unnecessary and costly,
and recommended removing both objectives since the airport is managed by the state or FAA, not the City.
Caltabiano made a motion to strike from Goal 3, Objectives O and P. The motion carried 4-1, Norton
voting in opposition.
Muhlfeld called for a recess at 9:27pm and reconvened at 9:38pm.
YouTube Video 2:30:13
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Caltabiano made a motion to revert the Economic Development Element back to the staff’s
version. Councilor Sweeney and Davis stated they do not support that motion.
Davis, page 45 of the plan, page 426 of the packet. Vision: “We support local business retention and
expansion and encourage a diverse year-round economic base to accommodate current and future
commercial enterprises while protecting our unique character and qualities through policies supporting
moderate economic growth for our community. We will endeavor to provide a full range of goods, services,
and jobs to serve our local population. He stated we had that conversation in the vision statement for the
entire plan. He was just going to say we take the language out of that and incorporate it here instead. Davis
made a motion to amend the vision statement to read: “We support local business retention and
expansion encouraging a diverse year-round economic base and growing the local economy while
protecting the quality of life for the residents who sustain it.” The motion carried.
Davis, page 48 of the plan, page 429 of the packet, currently reads Goal 2, Objective i. Support
creative lower cost enterprises that cater to locals such as food trucks or temporary “pop up shops” using
existing under utilized buildings, facilities or outdoor spaces. Davis made a motion to put this statement
9

[PAGE 10]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
back in the document. He supported food trucks because the community enjoys them and they offer
affordable options when properly regulated. Feury agreed on food trucks but strongly opposed pop-up shops,
saying they hurt brick-and-mortar businesses. Norton felt downtown still needed space for small startups and
supported keeping the idea. Davis agreed pop-up shops didn’t have enough support and withdrew his
motion.
YouTube Video 2:38:54
RESOURCE DOCUMENT – ECONOMIC ELEMENT
Davis said the section is overly complicated and needs a version that blends the Planning Board and
staff drafts. Feury agreed, saying the adopted version feels overly positive about tourism and unfairly
dismissive of remote work, which he believes is important to the community. Norton questioned whether
major changes are worthwhile this late in the process but felt the draft lacks realism about local hardships.
Staff said they can revise the section if council gives clear directions. Staff emphasized their intent was
neutrality and noted some stakeholder findings were removed because they were viewed unfavorably.
Council discussed whether to revise the section broadly or focus on key areas.
Feury, page 144 of the plan, page 546 of the packet, the second paragraph, last sentence, moved to
strike STRs have a range of effects: they impact local hospitality businesses, alter residential
neighborhoods, increase summer traffic, and reduce market share for hotels. that contribute to the 3%
resort tax. STRs that are within our city limits contribute to and the insinuation in that statement is that they
don’t. That is not a true statement. The motion carried.
Feury, page 142 of the plan, page 545 of the packet, second paragraph, 4th line, moved to strike
Tourism brings substantial benefits to Whitefish – excellent restaurants and unique shops are possible
because of visitor spending – but these businesses also depend on consistent local support. The motion
carried.
Feury, page 145 of the plan, page 547 of the packet, second paragraph, 6th line, made a motion to
amend: Economic growth and development plans would be wise toshould build on the success of
tourism in Whitefish. The motion carried.
Feury, page 147 of the plan, page 549 of the packet, last paragraph, moved to strike liquor store
from the list. The motion carried.
Muhlfeld called the discussion and continued until the April 6th meeting. Staff will provide a
cleaner version with the recent edits. The public hearing remains open.
5) COMMUNICATION FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
YouTube Video 3:03:09
Muhlfeld asked to discuss the County’s new septic rule change at the next meeting. Sweeney wants
the Health Board representative present for that discussion. Meeker confirmed the City’s representative can
attend the April 20 meeting.
10

[PAGE 11]
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 23, 2026
6) ADJOURNMENT (Resolution 08-10 establishes 11:00 p.m. as end of meeting unless extended to 11:30 by majority)
Mayor Muhlfeld adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
/s/John Muhlfeld
Mayor Muhlfeld
Attest:
/s/Michelle Howke
Michelle Howke, Whitefish City Clerk
11