Residents and housing groups urge Whitefish council to act on planning commission conduct during growth-policy drafting

Community representatives and residents urged the Whitefish City Council on Oct. 6 to intervene in how the planning commission has conducted itself while drafting the city’s growth policy, saying the commission’s behavior has undermined broad public engagement and staff efforts.

Keegan Siebenaler, policy director for ShelterWF, told the council the planning commission had “shown disrespect for the time and work of city staff, for public comment and public visioning sessions,” and described a pattern in which members gave outsized opportunities to a single, recurring attendee after the formal public-comment period. “Not many members of the community that took their time to show up to that meeting felt like their feedback was valued by the city,” Siebenaler said.

The growth policy will guide Whitefish’s land-use, transportation and housing decisions over the next 20 years. Advocates told the council that the commission’s process — frequent, lengthy meetings and repeated line-by-line revisions that exclude themes raised in widely attended visioning sessions — risks producing a draft out of step with community priorities.

Martie Brandt, a resident at 575 Armory Road, said she had submitted a detailed letter and described the problem as recurring: “Every meeting compounds the same problems and creates new ones,” Brandt said, urging the council to act before public trust erodes further. Brandt emphasized that city staff “are working incredibly hard” and deserve respect.

Nathan Dugan, who identified himself as chair of the Climate Action Plan Committee, told the council he has attended multiple planning-commission meetings and said the public feedback gathered in broader visioning sessions — particularly from younger residents pressing for affordability and quality-of-life measures — was not being carried into commission drafts. He said a small number of commission members were effectively narrowing who shapes the document.

Leonette Galaz, founder and leader of Flathead Democracy, asked the council to "protect the integrity of the public input process" and remove commissioners who she said were "subverting" that process. Simon Roston, a recent college graduate, told the council that if public input does not matter, young people will disengage from local government.

Speakers suggested several remedies the council could consider, including reviewing appointment practices for the planning commission, clarifying meeting rules to limit extended exchanges with individual members of the public outside designated comment periods, and ensuring staff time is used efficiently. None of the public comments recorded in the transcript contained a formal motion or vote by the council.

The council did not take action on the floor in the provided transcript excerpt; speakers said transportation, land use and housing chapters are approaching key review dates and urged timely council review to preserve trust in the process.

Ending: Speakers asked the council to weigh whether the current commission membership and meeting practices will produce a growth policy that reflects broad public input and to take steps to restore confidence in the drafting process.