Residents debate growth plan edits as council moves toward consultant RFP for land‑use element

Residents and civic groups pressed the Whitefish City Council on June 2 over proposed growth‑policy language and how public input was aggregated into a draft known as the Heart of Whitefish.

Speakers representing community boards, neighborhood groups and individual residents raised three recurring concerns: (1) whether the Heart of Whitefish document had properly reflected broad public input, (2) whether the plan's data and assumptions are accurate, and (3) whether proposals for added commercial mixed‑use would create empty storefronts as shopping shifts online.

John Heberling, a Whitefish resident who has tracked planning law and process, told the council that state planning statutes give the planning commission defined duties in preparing a growth plan and that the council should be clear about roles and sequencing in adopting any final plan. "The planning board...has specific duties and they must do them," Heberling said, arguing the draft should be considered in the formal planning process.

Other commenters urged caution on adding new commercial capacity. Michael Heine pointed to national and local retail closures and growing online purchasing, saying: "People want underwear, they order them online," and warning that more commercial space could create vacancies downtown.

Speakers also disputed specific data in Heart of Whitefish. Dakota Whitman, who gave a detailed critique, said the document relied on an unreliable rent calculation and questioned an assertion that remote‑work trends might reverse the housing crunch. "If claims like these are gonna be made, there needs to be sources to back them up," Whitman said.

Representatives of stakeholder groups pressed for clearer access to the raw public comments. Cameron Dexter, representing Citizens for a Better Flathead, said his organization had submitted comments but had not been able to locate the full set of individual stakeholder submissions and said he had filed a public‑records request.

Council members and staff responded at the meeting by agreeing the next formal step is to solicit a consultant to help complete the land‑use element and public outreach. City Administrator Dana said the consultant scope is not yet finalized but estimated costs could be "a hundred, $200,000" and said grant funds are available to pay for that work.

Council members expressed differing views on process. Some urged the planning board to continue its work; others suggested more direct, line‑by‑line consolidation of comments to avoid wholesale deletions or additions that appear to many commenters to be authored by a single group.

No ordinance or policy change was adopted at the June 2 meeting on the growth plan. Council directed staff to draft a scope of services and an RFP for consultant assistance on the land‑use element; officials said they will return with cost estimates and a formal contract for council consideration.

The city will continue the multi‑step process required by state planning law and local procedure, including additional public input and planning‑board review before final council action.