Construction of a water tower in Whitefish appears to be the solution to a properly functioning system along U.S. 93 South by increasing storage.  

Whitefish City Council on Monday is tasked with reviewing an engineering report related to addressing the issue of a shortage of storage, along with the need to replace a 6-inch cast iron main on the south end of town that is beyond its lifespan. 

Council meets at 7:10 p.m. at City Hall, 418 E. Second St. 

Following a public hearing on a preliminary engineering report from AE2S, Council will vote on whether to submit the report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Public Works Director Craig Workman in a memo to Council, noted that the engineering document is critical in applying for State Revolving Fund loans, particularly for drinking and wastewater projects.  

“It serves as a planning document, identifying the best projects to address public health, safety, or environmental concerns,” he said.  

The engineering report outlines several alternatives for addressing the issue. Four options include constructing some type of storage tank at different locations around Whitefish. 

One option focuses on increasing the water main along Spokane Avenue and Depot Street but does not address increasing distribution system capacity. Another option would construct a new transmission pipeline around the eastern flank of the city, addressing emergency flow deficiencies in the southern end of the city, but not storage deficiencies.  

Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $1.7 million to $26.1 million.  

The recommended alternative, with a price tag of $16.6 million, is construction of a 1-million-gallon elevated storage tank at the city shop site. It also includes a new booster station to isolate the southern main zone from the northern main zone and the construction of an upgraded 16-inch transmission main to fill the storage tank.  

The option would address the water storage deficiency, emergency flow deficiencies, and remove the cast iron main.  

ALSO ON the agenda, Council will hear a presentation from Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors on a fire and emergency medical services cost of services report for the Whitefish Fire Department. The firm is recommending the city increase the fees it charges related to various emergency services between 21% to 67%, depending on the type of response.  

The firm reviewed the financial performance of the Fire Department in recent years as well as the call volume for fire and medical services. Two distinct fees were calculated for most services based on whether the individual receiving the service is a resident of the fire district — residents pay less, reflecting their contribution to the Fire Department through local taxes.  

The two major revenue sources for the Fire Department are fees charged for services and from a property tax levy. 

In years past, the revenue from those sources has been insufficient to fund operations, and the city has had to rely on general fund dollars to operate the department. In 2024, the city had to transfer just under $500,000, which is about 10% of the Fire Department's revenues for the year.  

DURING A work session at 5:30 p.m., Council will discuss how to address the future maintenance of the greenspace boulevard areas along U.S. 93 South.   

The Parks and Recreation Department is providing Council with three potential options to address challenges to maintaining the spaces. Challenges include an aging irrigation system, inconsistency with a mix of city and privately maintained areas, and landscaping that is outdated and includes noxious weeds.  

The annual cost to maintain the 5.5 acres of landscaped greenspace along U.S. 93 South is estimated at $28,400. 

The Parks Department maintains about 200 acres in the city. The citywide parkland and greenway assessment goes toward expenses related to maintenance of that acreage.   

In fiscal year 2025, $2,480 assessment fees were allocated per acre of publicly maintained property, while the areas along U.S. 93 received more than twice its allotment.   

Three options are outlined in a memo to Council.   

The first would upgrade the irrigation system and landscaping and increase funding for in-house staffing or contracted services to maintain an appropriate level of maintenance. A second option would upgrade the irrigation and landscaping but then require all property owners to maintain boulevards adjacent to their property.  

The cost for construction alone was estimated at about $300,000 in 2000, according to the memo. 

The third option would turn over maintenance to property owners and abandon the irrigation system but allow adjacent property owners to connect to the system by adding an irrigation meter.   

Deputy Editor Heidi Desch may be reached at 758-4421 or [email protected].