Citing a lack of public input, the Whitefish City Council has delayed a vote on expanding the city's urban growth boundary, which would allow for city services — sewer, water, policing and fire protection — to be extended to the area south of Montana 40.

The council will hold another public hearing on the matter on June 21 and likely vote at that time.

"This is a weighty decision and not one that should be taken lightly," council member Andy Feury said. "I'm disappointed in the lack of public comment."

About a half-dozen people weighed in during last week's hearing. Some said expanding the city's boundaries makes sense for future planning; others said it would facilitate urban sprawl.

The urban growth boundary is meant to reflect the growth around the city limits that is likely to occur in the next 10 years, and an accompanying plan outlines how the city could effectively provide services to areas that may eventually be annexed into the city. An area must be within the urban growth boundary to be annexed.

Hilary Lindh, the city's long-range planner, said an extension-of-services plan is required under state law.

"Services are not extended unless requested by a property owner and annexation has to be initiated by the property owner," Lindh said. "The reality is that commercial developments in the area are occurring and requests for city services have been brought to the city, which is prompting the discussion for the change."

"The map shows where we can extend services, it doesn't mean we're going to annex those areas," Planning Director Dave Taylor added.

FOR DECADES, the City Council has kept the southern urban growth boundary at the city limits at the intersection of Montana 40 and U.S. 93. But recently council members have considered moving that line following requests from property owners and developers interested in pursuing projects just south of the intersection.

"We're sitting right in the middle of a choice as developers between having complete freedom to do almost anything we want with very little oversight by the county to tremendous oversight and input from the city to determine what goes there," property owner Eric Payne told the council last week. "Everybody can see the value of having accountability for these developers. There is nobody watching the participants of this corridor now and it's pretty scary."

Payne and Dean Grommett together own about 11 acres on the northwest side of the intersection, and both expressed interest in annexation. A potential owner of roughly 10 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection also expressed interest in annexation.

A draft update to the urban growth boundary shows extending it south of the Montana 40 intersection to Blanchard Lake Road. That's as far as the city's Public Works Department believes it can feasibly extend services within the next decade, though it doesn't mean the city would have to extend services that far.

AS AN alternative, city planning staff said, the boundary could be located at the intersection with Emerald Drive, but with significant development happening in the area, it might be better to encompass a larger area by placing the boundary at Blanchard Lake Road.

Mayre Flowers, with Citizens for a Better Flathead, urged the council to take more time and hold a work session on the issue to better provide information to the public.

"This is a huge issue and for the last 30 years this has been discouraged, and it needs much more discussion," Flowers said.

Rhonda Fitzgerald spoke against extending the boundary to the south.

The city's extension-of-services plan and urban growth boundary are typically updated every five to 10 years. The plan was last updated in 2018 after a suggestion to extend services to the south drew criticism.

"The community says over and over that they don't want this," Fitzgerald said. "We already have a two-mile strip along the highway that we have to try to improve. What will these new properties do to the city?"

Bob Horne said there's active interest in developing the properties that would be part of the urban growth boundary update.

"One of the purposes of this is to protect ourselves from the county," Horne said, though he said it seems too soon to annex properties without ensuring proper zoning to guide development there.

COUNCIL MEMBERS have expressed concerns about development occurring in the area under control by Flathead County. The county in 2017 adopted a corridor plan and overlay zone for properties south of Whitefish and rezoned about 490 acres along the highway.

The city and the county fought for years for the authority to zone the area just outside the city limits, known as the "doughnut." The Montana Supreme Court gave that authority to the county in 2014.

If properties were annexed into the city, they would be subject to city development requirements, architectural review and engineering standards.

In preparing for the next public hearing on June 21, Mayor John Muhlfeld asked city staff to provide more information on how Kalispell has handled similar situations, as well as more analysis on the pros and cons of placing the southern boundary at Emerald Drive versus Blanchard Lake Road.