Whitefish has taken a step toward adopting a plan that describes and prioritizes transportation goals for the city over the next 20 years.

The 2022 Transportation Plan was the first item on the agenda at last week’s Whitefish City Council meeting, yet again. Ultimately, the council voted 5-1 in favor of the resolution of intent to adopt the plan, with Councilor Giuseppe Caltabiano in opposition.

“What we’re doing tonight is a resolution of intent to adopt, we’re not adopting the plan tonight,” explained Councilor Andy Feury. “Before that plan comes back to us for final adoption, we do still have time to tinker.”

The Whitefish Transportation Plan is an amendment to the city’s Growth Policy and is “designed

to guide transportation planning activities by setting forth direction and strategies to help shape the city’s transportation network through the year 2040.”

At the meeting in late September, the council directed staff to amend the plan to require 10-foot, shared-use paths rather than a width of eight feet. Whitefish Public Works Director Craig Workman said there would be some additional changes, mostly of the clerical variety, to the document and the council chose to postpone the vote for two weeks, in part, to see the changes.

Workman briefly summarized the clerical changes to the document at the Oct. 3 meeting. He said it had been indicated, incorrectly, in previous drafts that the Montana Department of Transportation selected the ‘no build’ alternative in the final Downtown Whitefish Highway Study. Actually, MDT’s preferred option is concept C while citizens who attended the transportation plan meetings favored concept G.

Concept C depicted driving lanes for Spokane Avenue from 13th Street to Second Street would include two northbound and one southbound. Second Street would continue to have two driving lanes east and west, and Baker Avenue would have two southbound lanes and one northbound lane from Second to 13th Street.

Under Concept G, two south bound lanes would be part of Baker Avenue. On Spokane, two northbound lanes would only run a portion of the street from 13th Street to Seventh Street before transitioning to two travel lanes.

Regarding what some are calling an impasse with the state over which options are preferable, conversations are continuing and Workman described the continuing efforts to collaborate.

“As we carry forward (with) conversations, let’s talk about areas that we do agree (on) and perhaps we can get some of those projects done within the planning horizon of this report,” said Workman of the city and state working together.

Feury clarified some of the financial confusion around the disagreement between the city and the state.

“Just because we’re at an impasse with the state does not mean that we are going to fund it all, it means we haven’t agreed on how it’s going to work,” said Feury. “I think Craig’s (Workman) approach is spot on — that we address those things that we have commonality with and we… get those projects done and then we move forward.”

One project in the plan, the Greenwood Extension, would connect Greenwood Drive to Monegan Road via a bridge over the Whitefish River. It is part of an effort to provide east-west connectivity within the city, something Feury described as his “overriding issue of the plan.”

Several citizens who live on Greenwood Drive were in attendance to speak against the proposed widening of their street and the bridge.

“Semis roll down Greenwood Drive… to access Super One. The ground shakes,” said resident Michael Meszaros. “If you put a bridge (where it is planned)… and traffic increases, you’re going to be cracking a bunch of foundations.”

One fundamental concern of the neighbors, aside from the instability of the land, was the size of the easement. Residents believe there is a 30-foot easement on Greenwood Drive and the City’s plans were based on a 50-foot easement.

According to the neighbors, the road is currently around 36 feet wide. Jean Arroyo said she doesn’t know where the city is going to get the extra room to develop Greenwood Drive because her house is about 18 feet from the road.

Saundra Alessi shared deeds and easements with the city clerk that reflected the 30-foot easement and Workman provided an approved plat from 1982 that shows a 50-foot right-of-way with five feet of easement on either side. Whitefish City Manager Dana Smith clarified that Workman’s document is the most recent as Alessi’s document was from 1977.

Norton made a friendly amendment to take the Greenwood bridge project out of the plan because the neighborhood made many compelling arguments against the project. The amendment passed 5-1 with Councilor Ben Davis voting in opposition.

Part of Caltabiano’s objection to the plan involved the financial reporting that is included and said he could not vote for a plan that starts out in the red.

“This is part of the Growth Policy and we don’t put costs in the Growth Policy. I’m a little confused as to why we put costs in (the Transportation Plan), other than it gives us a ballpark of what it’s going to cost,” said Councilor Steve Qunell.

He added that projects are funded by city, federal and state dollars along with grants and putting numbers in a plan like this one only causes confusion.

“This is the vision of what we need in order to make our city function better in the future and whatever that cost is, we’ll figure out a way to pay for it,” Qunell said. “So we’re not adopting a deficit because we don't have funding for 36 million dollars. By the time we get to some of these projects, the costs are going to be vastly different than what they’ve been estimated at already.”

Other council members and Mayor John Muhlfeld stressed the importance of having long-term plans in place to be eligible for grants and other funding opportunities.

To view the full Whitefish Transportation Plan visit the city’s website at http://whitefish.transportationplan.net/