Community Development Board delays action on Vision Whitefish 2045 economic development goals after board split

The Whitefish Community Development Board voted Feb. 20 to delay formal action on the draft economic development goals and objectives in the Vision Whitefish 2045 growth policy, after a split among board members and public commenters.

Alan Tiefenbach, the planner presenting the update, told the board the Montana Land Use Planning Act requires an economic development assessment in a growth policy and said the city hired an economic development consultant who reached out to about 30 stakeholders and presented interim findings to the board in April and June. “Economic development is one of the topics that Montana Land Use Planning Act requires to be addressed in a growth policy,” Tiefenbach said.

The board’s motion, made by Chair Steve (last name not specified) to adopt staff’s recommendation to delay further discussion until the entire economic development chapter is completed, was seconded and initially produced a tie vote. After clarification about voting eligibility and a deciding vote cast to break the tie, the motion passed and the board moved on to discuss the environment, natural resources and hazards chapter.

Why it matters: the city is working under a state timeline and a tied grant: Tiefenbach said Whitefish has been awarded a Pro Housing grant administered through the Montana Department of Commerce worth $391,000 that requires the plan — including zoning reforms — to be adopted and zoning ready to issue permits by May 17, 2026. That timeline was repeatedly cited by staff urging the board to stay on schedule.

Board members and public commenters diverged over how much policy-level detail the growth policy should contain and how much the planning board should rewrite staff-drafted text. Board member John (last name not specified) pressed for changes he said reflect public concern for slower, “moderate” economic growth and for prioritizing residents’ needs over business and tourism. Chair Steve responded that staff and the contracted consultant authored the draft policy and that the board should focus comments and avoid wholesale rewrites at the work-session stage.

Public commenters addressed economic development aims and related topics: Chris Schusterman of Heart of Whitefish asked the board to remove a goal recommending pursuit of paid downtown parking and warned against language that would direct zoning changes in specific zones (WB-2). Several residents and civic groups urged the board to ensure the goals reflect the community vision recorded in multiple visioning sessions and stakeholder meetings.

During discussion staff emphasized process and role clarity: Tiefenbach described the growth policy as a “20,000-foot view” policy document that sets values, goals and objectives; he said implementation details and enforceable regulations belong in zoning and the implementing code. He also said the city had posted all public comments and provided a redline draft and a table of staff responses to each comment for board review.

What was decided: the board approved a motion to delay consideration of the economic development goals and objectives until staff presents the full economic development chapter for board review; the decision was a procedural pause rather than adoption of any new policy language. Members and staff repeatedly said the economic development chapter will be reviewed again and that the board will have further opportunities to comment.

Next steps: staff plans to return the completed economic development chapter to the board for review and to coordinate with the city council if board positions would conflict with existing council statements or long-standing policy. The overall Vision Whitefish 2045 process remains on a schedule tied to the state grant and the May 17, 2026 deadline.

Ending: Board members repeated that the work is ongoing; staff and consultants will continue outreach and revisions and the board will see the full chapter and supporting materials at a future meeting before any formal policy changes are adopted.