[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6074177,"mediaKeyId","2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3","parentId",2986461,"title","Whitefish Community Center asks council to consider annual support; city to review during budget process","audioSeconds",908,"startMs",6452000,"endMs",7360000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3&start=6452&end=7360","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3/thumbnail_6452000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6074177/Whitefish/Flathead-County/Montana/Whitefish-Community-Center-asks-council-to-consider-annual-support-city-to-review-during-budget-process","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6074177-a81022402292df3b448d01b9ef8c156f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174880&Signature=mgV4l~FtWAlWhooRciIYrqT3ErbKhk5u-i-edTcWwaLaXq-4IsY2LGPMFCF27rVCUDHtK-ZtXy6u8QW9YnxAJ8yZmhLxujlRL1mQej7zA9w7-g2a~v1mEH~evE9Hv~IZ2RD~uC9YOZo4DJdBjsFF5-13vgoUmGuGoQMbNeDopNdEihhtCyEYTRYS3SGSRIswPubBUrLys5PD03bU7-7ltKJv2is-qKKCl4aGQNitcCffGdkvm4uwJw-Y2B2tt5Ci2N831HR1r-e99rwG1ZjNG1HRDfRqiRXotZLSgoHuj-cCD09p8hgTQ1K36E95l8p91Ol5Ue97Kp0~clXXCIa4xA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MT / City of Whitefish","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Whitefish Community Center asked the City Council on Feb. 18 for recurring financial support to help fund an executive‑director position and expanded community services. The center, which operates programs, rentals and Meals on Wheels activities in a building owned by Flathead County on city‑leased land, asked the council to consider a multi‑year contribution to sustain staffing and operations.

Tom (executive director) told council the center logged more than 3,800 visits last year across activities including a parents and children program, speaker series, mediation/counseling referrals, rentals for community events, and Meals on Wheels coordination (the latter partially funded by Flathead County). The center currently operates with a budget on the order of $60,000 in the last year and has an existing small contribution from the city (approximately $1,500 for outdoor irrigation and lighting tied to the lease). The center asked for a larger, ongoing contribution to stabilize staffing (they noted an example wage of roughly $26/hour at about 30 hours per week).

Council reaction and next steps: Councilors praised the community center’s volunteerism and staff work and asked staff to evaluate the request as part of the FY2026 preliminary budget process. City Manager Dana said she could include an appropriation request for council consideration but cautioned that the ongoing legislative session and uncertainties about property‑tax authority and other budget pressures make timing and sizing of any appropriation uncertain. Several councilors suggested starting with a smaller recurring contribution or evaluating the request in the budget process rather than committing tonight.

Funding context: Manager Dana noted the city has other nonprofit‑partner arrangements (insurance and operations support for civic transit and other facilities) and that a $40,000 recurring contribution would be significant in an already constrained budget year (staff noted $40,000 is roughly a half‑mill of property tax). Council asked staff to present options, including smaller initial contributions, and to bring the center’s request into the preliminary budget calendar for council review.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whitefish City Council Meeting February 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The community center requested ongoing compensation support for staff to sustain expanded programming; council directed staff to consider the request for the preliminary FY2026 budget and return with options.","taxTitle","Whitefish, Flathead County, Montana","taxId",56558,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6074182,"Council directs staff to explore public dedication of two Tamarack Ridge courts after split vote",1464,4776000,6240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3&start=4776&end=6240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3/thumbnail_4776000.jpg","/articles/6074182/Whitefish/Flathead-County/Montana/Council-directs-staff-to-explore-public-dedication-of-two-Tamarack-Ridge-courts-after-split-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6074182-03a4665124ca598b9ceea7e64ac8640a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174880&Signature=FHLahcEKZGa5n6SBIRFX6SpucdR5RU4yMp0H5RLYZU1t4OgBX5xrVmIPjKtCy~HKdTkoNmObif-fTff88hAbrk~q1GDWJYkrvAgiWOwsI6I~F5UbIPh4yZITQAxzpj0g1ISEimSnw4chPoOmSp9bt3Fb6Epb5wnr731YI-jj-oPO77P~OsNaVfJg3QqQEMp2A76krpNIK4NNdSZgwM5-jM1l7g9x-AWwYD5KdD14uBTlK~J~ZhifVJMN-rnb9M728UQwMjzBY1Gcie9bPUfChAo~Xd7DWXuX6HtVU0uHj8jdxoiGjb9A1vCTT1AVOLh7SlNSTi5q2~gUadOP2OWt~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council on Feb. 18 heard a request from the Tamarack Ridge Homeowners Association to dedicate two privately constructed courts — Merganser Court and Harlequin Court — to the city for public maintenance. After extensive discussion about construction standards, maintenance costs and precedent for other private roads, the council directed staff to continue reviewing the request and to prepare the necessary plat amendment and cost information for a future council decision.

Why it matters: The courts were originally platted and constructed as private roadways open to the public; staff and councilors noted the pavement and utility easement exist but the roads do not meet current public‑road construction standards such as curb, gutter and standard boulevard widths. Accepting dedication would increase annual street maintenance costs and create long‑term overlay obligations, but HOA members argued public maintenance would equalize street assessment fees and relieve private management burdens.

What was said: Paul Burton, a Tamarack Ridge homeowner, explained the HOA wants parity with adjacent lots that were previously dedicated to the city and noted the roads are in good condition with an estimated 8–12 years before overlay. Planning and public works staff told the council that maintenance costs for fiscal year 2025 were estimated at roughly $5,400 annually for plowing and routine upkeep, while the anticipated overlay in 8–10 years could cost about $120,000.

Council debate focused on precedent and fairness. Some councilors argued homeowners who received lower lot prices because of private roads should not later transfer long‑term maintenance costs to the city; others said the roads are serviceable and the council should consider public ownership to create consistent standards across neighborhoods. Council members also discussed options such as a special improvement district (SID) for reconstruction if the HOA later chose full public‑standard upgrades.

Outcome and next steps: The initial motion to decline the dedication failed. A subsequent motion to direct staff to consider the dedication, work with the HOA on a revised plat, and return to council with cost and legal analysis passed; staff will produce a draft plat amendment and fiscal analysis for a future meeting. If council later votes to accept dedication, the city would need to identify funding for long‑term overlays or require an assessment or SID for reconstruction.

","After debate about costs and precedent, the council directed staff to work with the Tamarack Ridge HOA on potential dedication of Merganser Court and Harlequin Court to the city for public maintenance and to return with a recommended plat amendment and cost details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6074187,"Council revokes conditional use permit for proposed Whitefish Airport hangar after appeals board decision",128,2910000,3038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3&start=2910&end=3038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3/thumbnail_2910000.jpg","/articles/6074187/Whitefish/Flathead-County/Montana/Council-revokes-conditional-use-permit-for-proposed-Whitefish-Airport-hangar-after-appeals-board-decision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6074187-5b1d50ae06b8e18b84e22d3261bcd896/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174880&Signature=ILWnsPgS0g9qVsX1q9Mzi2aN6eOYlj4bjKTBfm5y7f97xIgXu93cVTwq1UH3PDrZET61JASKCwa4MX8UfAVoMGAHiRuRwktrkOS-D8lJ8pGnFD-R9BkBD8k0-ZaSBuNcWn73PdIRhnwyMetjmtEnY-Nkx0BINYh1k2sRs4BW7SDgTjJQTUVO-OSfgiDeH9Cc19MaZog82MENJ-XRmYz9S-LQBbpPcPrGYA3eLlVEHs-XalHtdNksL2Hqn7qo8x0IG-5uX0DsghaG-KQvF1WgNrYUfdU5Wa-AMq4IKRevrt1omp6sMbKv8ZazvMQ2NUlIipIm1eL1LKUizZyDk0mdOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whitefish City Council voted on Feb. 18 to revoke conditional use permit WCUP 24‑05, which had authorized a private airplane hangar as an accessory use at the Whitefish Airport. Staff recommended revocation after the Community Development Board (CDB), acting as a board of adjustment, found that the zoning administrator’s earlier interpretation was in error and that a 300‑foot setback applied.

Background and legal context: The CUP had originally been approved in July 2024 subject to five conditions, including ongoing compliance with adopted city codes and ordinances. A neighbor appeal argued the zoning administrator misinterpreted whether a 300‑foot setback applied to the proposed hangar location. In January the CDB agreed with the appellants and found a 300‑foot setback should have been applied; the approved site does not meet that requirement.

Staff told the council the appeal decision left the city little practical choice: under the code the permit is suspended pending a council hearing, and the CDB decision meant the applicant could not meet the applicable zoning standard on the currently approved site. Staff noted the council could leave the CUP suspended, but the code requires the council to set a hearing and decide whether to lift the suspension or revoke the permit.

Public comment: Several speakers addressed the council. Kate McMahon, one of the appellants, asked the council to revoke the CUP. Mike Casey and Brad Shuster (representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association regional membership) urged the council to consider the broader appeal standard and the effects on airport development, with the AOPA representative requesting a final ruling on the appeal so parties could seek closure. The council heard from both proponents and opponents before taking action.

Council action and rationale: Councilors said the CDB decision on interpretation is final for zoning appeals; the council’s role at this stage was to determine whether the CUP should be revoked because the project could not meet code as interpreted by the CDB. Planning staff explained there is no practical mitigation that would allow the applicant to meet code for the current site; a building permit could not be issued under the existing approval. Councilors expressed regret for the applicant’s costs but emphasized the need to follow the code and the CDB ruling.

Implications and follow‑up: Planning staff and several councilors said the case exposed unclear language in the zoning code related to setbacks and aviation uses; the council discussed pursuing a text amendment or a more comprehensive study of airport‑adjacent zoning to clarify intent and avoid similar outcomes. Staff noted that if the zoning text changes in the future, an applicant could reapply; the council discussed refunding permit application fees or waiving reapplication fees as an administrative step to address what several councilors described as an issue rooted in the city’s code drafting history.

","Following a Community Development Board ruling that the approved site did not meet a 300‑foot setback interpretation, the council revoked CUP 24‑05 for a private airplane hangar at the Whitefish Airport.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6074192,"Whitefish council narrows tree‑removal restriction for Whitetail Ridge subdivision",2097,481000,2578000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3&start=481&end=2578","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986461-7864a76cd5a3bcfbfdda386f0b1d9ef3/thumbnail_481000.jpg","/articles/6074192/Whitefish/Flathead-County/Montana/Whitefish-council-narrows-treeremoval-restriction-for-Whitetail-Ridge-subdivision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6074192-4c008495080361caaddead40c8dbe613/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174880&Signature=ehvr51YHNZkL68jfrdo1Y3w7siuCrYLCQWcXZL6jX3wHMu-p4whKbtKWV5KvoyF1P4U5K0UYaKAYQlwtMDCNdfLZshO~54K~BFeZ2aBy3MfKORZDpTEcLGb405Z0O~hseO-QcVjbfPQJzldWsgYP-wFXmfzrS3xG8ClmQh9~6ct51hrjUBI2BX1K8rBbJvm4wJUcxe1a0309pw8fEn3HkYiwDyQiiCcTYAaHyvJwAl3ift2mBh7Aqt7muLypWTifqtBtEX0k0hBpJF3fM6XU9~E7wXL0WB-BSOnENR5igCRXHQ1uX9MW17Isoa6Vg-TwjnlvNxvz1aTXD7NXm-I7Xg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whitefish City Council on Feb. 18 modified a condition of approval for the Whitetail Ridge (WPP 24-02) 73‑lot subdivision to permit removal of trees within the 10‑foot dry utility easement along each lot front and to allow removal when a qualified professional deems a tree hazardous, while otherwise retaining the requirement that lots not be cleared during infrastructure installation.

The change affects a subdivision approved last June that includes 59 single‑family detached lots and 14 townhouse sublots along Flathead Avenue and W. 18th Street. City staff and the applicant told the council removal timing affects construction safety and efficiency; neighbors and preservation advocates warned that early, broad clearing could reduce tree cover and harm water retention and neighborhood character.

Why it matters: The amendment balances developers’ request for operational efficiency during road and utility construction with residents’ and some council members’ desire to preserve trees and avoid an immediate, large‑scale loss of canopy. Council discussion focused on when trees are removed, who decides which trees remain, and whether field marking, arborist oversight and revegetation requirements are needed.

City staff told the council that the original approval included a condition limiting lot clearing during infrastructure work “unless deemed hazardous by a qualified professional.” The applicant, represented by Eric Mulcahy of Sand Surveying, said the request is about timing: logging building envelopes at the same time roads and utilities are installed is safer and more efficient and avoids repeated heavy‑equipment traffic in narrow lots later. Mulcahy said the plan shows roughly 15 acres proposed for removal with about 19 acres to remain untouched as open space.

Residents who spoke at the public hearing described mixed views. Paul Burton, a Tamarack Ridge homeowner, said bringing two private streets into public ownership would equalize assessments among adjacent homeowners but that the council should understand the neighborhood context. Richard Dillner urged the council to “stick to your guns” and require developers to meet the condition as approved. Walker Corum, whose family previously owned the property, said a qualified logging crew would use methods intended to protect retained trees during removal.

Councilors asked whether an arborist survey and field flagging could provide more certainty about which trees would be retained in narrow side‑yard strips of about 20 feet, and whether city staff would inspect the flagged limits on the ground. Planning staff said the developer must identify and protect trees intended to remain and that staff inspections would occur to verify field conditions match the submitted plan. Staff also recommended measures to mark limits in the field and require revegetation and erosion control to prevent noxious weed infestation after disturbance.

After extended discussion, the council adopted a motion to amend condition 7 so that trees on individual lots may not be removed during infrastructure installation except in the dry utilities easement (the 10‑foot strip along lot fronts) or when a qualified professional declares a tree hazardous. The council also discussed (but did not adopt at this meeting) additional inspection and revegetation language staff recommended to ensure protection of trees intended to remain.

The council did not specify a new, citywide change to the subdivision regulations; staff said the tree retention requirement has been used as a standard condition for projects with significant trees but has not been codified in the subdivision regulations.

Looking ahead: Planning staff said they would work with the applicant to identify and flag trees to be removed or preserved and to draft any inspection and revegetation requirements for council review if necessary. The council’s amendment leaves intact the general requirement that trees are preserved unless hazardous or within the specified utility strip.

","The City Council agreed to amend a subdivision condition to allow tree removal within utility easements and for hazardous trees while keeping most lot‑level retention rules in place.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Whitefish Community Center asks council to consider annual support; city to review during budget process

Council directs staff to explore public dedication of two Tamarack Ridge courts after split vote

Council revokes conditional use permit for proposed Whitefish Airport hangar after appeals board decision

Whitefish council narrows tree‑removal restriction for Whitetail Ridge subdivision