Whitefish to go it alone on planning

Faced with growth pressures, the Whitefish City Council decided Monday night that it needs its own planning department.

The council backed a proposal by City Manager Gary Marks to pull out of the Tri-City Planning Office and create a separate planning office only for Whitefish.

The proposal includes plans to merge planning services with the city's building department.

The move would shut down the Tri-City Planning Office and force Kalispell and Columbia Falls - Whitefish's partners in the three-city operation - to restructure their own planning services.

"I think the [Tri-City Planning Office] has served us well in the past," Marks told the council during the special session. "But I don't believe it's going to serve us as well as we go in to the future."

Rapid growth in Whitefish in the past few years means the city needs more planning services than it receives from the joint planning office, Marks told the council.

Whitefish has contracted with the Tri-City office since 2001 and currently employs one senior planner who is in Whitefish three days a week.

The new planning structure would give Whitefish three full-time planners and one part-time administrative assistant.

The building department has five full-time employees and one part-time employee. The department would continue to employ those six people at the same salaries and their responsibilities would be unchanged. The only difference would be that the current building department director and his staff would be under the supervision of the new planning director.

Whitefish must give the Tri-City office notice of its withdrawal by Jan 31, 2005. The withdrawal would be effective July 1, 2005.

The need for more long-range planning is one reason Whitefish is going it alone.

The current planning office is overwhelmed with processing applications for zoning or master plan amendments, so the planners don't spend much time on long-range planning, according to Marks and Tom Jentz, the Tri-City office director.

"What we have is over 2 percent growth," Jentz said. "And technically what we are is, we're out of control."

Jentz acknowledged that Whitefish's withdrawal would close his office; that city supplies 22 percent of the Tri-City annual budget.

"This is a little like attending your own wake or funeral," Jentz said when the council asked his opinion. But he added that creating its own planning office is probably the best move for Whitefish.

Eric Mulcahy, the senior planner for Whitefish, said he hasn't yet formulated an opinion on the proposal. Mulcahy splits his time between working in Whitefish and at the Tri-City's Kalispell office.

"I think the Tri-City is doing a good job for the city," he said. "It's just [Whitefish is] not getting the day-to-day use by not having a body there all the time.

Whitefish will not levy any new taxes to pay for the new office because the city has ample money in its building code fund. Rapid growth means that fund has revenue from building application fees to support such a venture, Marks said.

The city cannot currently pay for planning services with the money in the building code fund because planning and building are different departments with separate budgets.

The new city planning office would cost $245,337 a year, Marks estimated.

That money would come from what the city would have contributed to the Tri-City office next year ($158,383), plus $60,000 in planning application fees and $41,847 in building code money.

Whitefish paid the Tri-City office $93,997 this fiscal year.

Its contribution to the three-city office would have increased next year to pay for an additional planner, if the city reached an agreement with Flathead County commissioners to take over planning and zoning control within two miles of the city limits.

County commissioners previously rejected that arrangement. Whitefish, though, expects that the addition of Democrat Joe Brenneman to the commission could mean Whitefish will gain the added responsibilities during future negotiations.

Several council members expressed support for the planning proposal and said it was the best way for Whitefish to plan for the future, thus preserving its unique character.

"We are not planning," Councilwoman Cris Coughlin said. "We are reacting, and we need to get to a point where we're a step ahead."

Some councilmembers, though, didn't like the idea of pulling out of a joint planning situation.

"What if we save Whitefish but lose Flathead County?" Councilman Tom Muri asked. "What if we have this little Shangri-la called Whitefish, but we get outside of the city and it looks like crap?"

Marks reminded the council that building a new planning office doesn't restrict the city from joining a joint planning effort in the future. The council also discussed creating a countywide advisory board that would provide planning guidance to each of the cities.

The council will not meet again until Jan. 3 and is expected to vote then on the planning proposal. The proposal will go through only one reading and there will be no public hearing, although people are welcome to speak Jan. 3 during the opening portion of the meeting.

Reporter Camden Easterling can be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at ceasterling@dailyinterlake.com