Mayor & City Council

WHITEFISH CITY COUNCIL March 31, 2025, at 5:30PM SPECIAL MEETING 1) Call to Order Mayor Muhlfeld called the meeting to order. Councilors present were Qunell, Feury, Caltabiano, Davis, Sweeney. Councilor Norton was absent. City Staff present were, City Clerk Howke, City Manager Smith, City Attorney Jacobs, Finance Director Gospodarek, Planning and Building Director Taylor, Public Works Director Workman, Deputy Police Chief Conway and Fire Chief Hadley. Approximately 29 people were in the audience, and 13 attended virtually. 2) Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Muhlfeld asked John Repke to lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Discuss FWP’s denial of the City’s SPA 124 Permit application to construct a section of trail along the Whitefish River known as the Riverbend/Miles Avenue Trail Public Works Director Craig Workman provided an update on the shared-use path project adjacent to the Riverbend path. The city obtained a 6ft easement for the path in 1983, and while a path existed at one point, it fell into disrepair. In September 2022, the council approved moving forward with a raised boardwalk within this easement. The City contracted TD&H and WET for the design, and the final design was approved in May 2023, with authorization to submit the required 124 permit. The permit, initially submitted in summer 2024, encountered issues with the signature page but was later resubmitted. Staff has been working with FWP over the last eight months to address questions and clarify specifics. Challenges arose due to the 6ft easement being insufficient for the proposed 10ft path. Redesigned plans in February 2025 adjusted sections of the path to 6ft, but the permit was denied two weeks ago based on five findings: bank instability from tree/vegetation removal, disruption from additional impervious surface, added instability from retaining walls, concerns about helical piers, and shading effects on invasive fish. FWP proposed an alternative path, but staff determined it would not meet project goals, as it would reduce the width to 4ft, fail ADA compliance, and route pedestrians through a parking lot without an easement. Attorney Jacobs stated FWP proposed two alternatives: 1) do nothing, which they are required under MEPA; 2) or we notify FWP stating we accept their recommendations or modify our plans in accordance with their recommendations. Upon refusal to modify, FWP shall determine if it wants the disagreement arbitrated. Councilor Sweeney clarified that notice should be given to reject FWP's findings, signaling intent to proceed with the project, which leaves FWP with the options to approve the project or pursue arbitration. Councilor Davis remarked that the report largely outlines drawbacks without addressing the proposal’s benefits. He inquired whether the statute under which FWP operates accounts for weighing costs and benefits. Director Workman responded that FWP primarily focuses on fisheries and habitat conservation, not public benefit, and has avoided discussing the proposal after a permit denial last summer. Attempts to collaborate, including meetings with multiple stakeholders, were unsuccessful due to FWP's insistence on having a permit application in hand before discussions. Attorney Jacobs noted that MEPA’s focus is environmental protection, and arbitration lacks clear criteria or case law precedent. Mayor Muhlfeld expressed concern over FWP’s checklist EA approach,  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 31, 2025 emphasizing the requirement to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on both human and natural environments. He criticized FWP’s evaluation for failing to analyze alternatives and disregarding social aspects vital to the community. 4) Public Comment Mayor Muhlfeld opened public comment asked that comments be limited to 3-minutes. Bruce Boody emphasized the importance of the Riverbend Condo segment as part of the backbone of the Whitefish Trail system, highlighting its design along the river to avoid traffic and conflicts. He noted its ADA-compliant universal design, making it accessible for all. Boody read aloud an email he had previously sent to the Council, appended to the meeting packet, and urged the Council to proceed with the trail segment, citing community support for the project. John Phelps highlighted four instances where Whitefish has been treated differently compared to other agencies in the state: Spencer Lake, under Veteran's Bridge on Highway 93 West, Great Falls Sun River Path, and Great Falls Missouri River Project. He argued that FWP is violating constitutional principles of equal protection under the law, emphasizing that public agencies should apply consistent rules and standards to similar projects. Phelps encouraged the Council to challenge this issue and noted plans to extend trails along additional riverfront properties. Amy Flynn and Abbi Kurtz, 405 Haskill Creek Road, advocated for the Council to prioritize universal design principles in upcoming plans. They emphasized the importance of inclusivity for individuals of all abilities within both their family and the broader Whitefish community. They voiced concerns that the proposed minimum ADA requirements fall short of ensuring independence and safety for cyclists like Abbi, who is a skilled cyclist and a decade-long participant in the DREAM program. Abbi expressed her enjoyment of biking and the need for a design that fully supports her cycling endeavors. Richard Hildner, 104 5th Street, expressed concerns that the Environmental Assessment (EA) is incomplete, inaccurate, and lacks public participation. He criticized the frequent use of the term "could" in FWP's statements and urged the Council to examine its implications. Hildner highlighted public safety issues, particularly for residents of Mountain View Manor accessing Kay Beller Park and families navigating Miles Avenue. He raised questions about previous actions, such as a 40-foot deck on the river by Pine Lodge, and whether it was properly permitted. He also noted the lack of documentation regarding third-party communications with FWP. Hildner encouraged the Council to continue challenging the denial. Rachel Schmidt, 675 Woodside Lane, expressed her support for any necessary processes to advance the project and echoed previous comments regarding public safety. She criticized the analysis for lacking context within the broader river system, noting its proximity to a highly destabilized area that causes sediment issues. She argued that the denial by FWP lacked understanding of common stream restoration practices and called for a more proactive approach to improving the stream for fish and wildlife. Schmidt found the findings unconvincing, emphasizing the absence of definitive statements or contextual support in the report. Julie Tickle, Executive Director of Dream Adaptive Recreation and resident at 140 Burly Bear Trail, expressed disappointment in the denial of the 124-Permit. She urged the City Council to continue designing and pursuing the proposed trail, emphasizing the importance of a safe, universally accessible, and barrier- free path that reflects the city’s inclusive values. She criticized the alternative path proposed by FWP as impractical due to unnecessary elevation gains, switchbacks, and safety concerns, describing it as unlikely to be utilized effectively. Tickle highlighted the significance of a direct path for community members, especially families, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, arguing that ADA compliance should be seen as a 2  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 31, 2025 minimum standard rather than the ideal. She encouraged the Council to aim higher and collaborate to ensure the proposed path connects people of all abilities to natural spaces and each other. Ron Brunk, 640 W. 5th Street, raised concerns about the conclusions reached by FWP regarding the project's impact on fish. He pointed out that the same group approved a 124 permit for the memorial bridge located downstream of the proposed path, which involved significant infilling. He questioned the discrepancy in conclusions between the two projects and urged the Council to challenge FWP's findings. Diane Conradi addressed the Council, expressing concern over the limited options available to the city due to the state's actions in this process. She urged the Council to prioritize the needs of constituents while adhering to environmental laws. Diane highlighted three key legal frameworks: the Stream Protection Act (124 permit basis), MEPA (procedural examination of proposed actions), and Article 2 Section 8 of the Montana Constitution (ensuring public participation rights). She identified two primary issues: first, the state's proposed alternative is unrealistic, lacking technological feasibility and alignment with the city's goals; second, the concurrent issuance of a permit and decision notice has restricted the city's ability to respond to the state's factual claims. Diane emphasized the importance of the city reserving the right to challenge under the Stream Protection Act, explore alternatives to mitigate adverse impacts, and consider legal action under MEPA or constitutional claims regarding exclusion of public participation. She encouraged the Council to engage in dialogue with the state. Regan Peschel, 1412 W. Lakeshore Dr., expressed support for the River Path project, highlighting its value as an inclusive and community-enhancing asset, particularly given Whitefish's ongoing growth. She emphasized the importance of ADA compliance and noted that this segment would improve safety for trail users. Joan Ehrenberg, of 744 Hidden Valley Dr., expressed concerns about the city's consistent opposition to initiatives by the council and community. She highlighted issues related to the affordable housing clause and noted that funding for five Whitefish-based non-profits was denied due to miscommunication from the long-range training board. She identified this as part of a broader pattern of problematic behavior and urged the Council to pursue a strong legal response. Mike Fitzgerald, 412 Lupfer Ave, expressed concerns about ongoing obstacles in progressing the trail project. He emphasized previous roadblocks had been overcome and stressed the importance of persevering. He criticized the condominium homeowners and the FWP for creating delays, calling some of their reasons unreasonable. Fitzgerald urged continued efforts to move forward without giving up. Thomas Shae attended virtually and was unable to provide comment due to technical difficulties. He emailed his comments that are appended to the packet. There being no further public comment, Mayor Muhlfeld closed public comment. 5) Direction to City Manager Smith and City Attorney Jacobs Councilor Sweeney made a motion, seconded by Councilor Davis to direct City Attorney Jacobs to provide notice to FWP that we significantly disagree, and we would like to pursue options that FWP would provide to further manage this issue, and to add that “No” is not an option, and for staff to investigate options the City might have if FWP refuses to acknowledge our disagreement. Mayor Muhlfeld stated Councilor Norton shared with Mayor Muhlfeld her preference would be to consider the alternative that FWP offered. The motion carried. 3  CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 31, 2025 6) Adjourn Mayor Muhlfeld adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. /s/John Muhlfeld Mayor Muhlfeld Attest: /s/Michelle Howke Michelle Howke, Whitefish City Clerk 4