Commissioners weigh in on Whitefish move

The initial approval of the critical-areas ordinance by the Whitefish City Council is not sitting well with two of Flathead County's commissioners.

Commissioner Gary Hall, who spoke at the Tuesday night council meeting, said county residents living in the "doughnut" area outside city limits will be burdened by a confusing and flawed ordinance. The doughnut area is a two-mile planning zone of county lands that the city of Whitefish regulates.

Testimony from angry doughnut residents has led Hall to consider filing a lawsuit to dissolve Whitefish's authority over the area.

"People contacting me are very upset about it," Hall said. "They want to be released from Whitefish jurisdiction."

In a recent letter sent to the Whitefish City Council and mayor, Hall said the commissioners "will not tolerate the imposition of extreme measures such as the critical-areas ordinance on the residents living outside the city limits of Whitefish."

Commissioner Joe Brenneman, however, took issue with both the letter and the opposition to the ordinance. Brenneman said it was inappropriate for the letter to consistently use the word "we" when the commissioners have not had discussions concerning the ordinance.

In the letter, Hall threatened litigation if the doughnut area was not exempted from the ordinance.

"I'm still looking at getting legal counsel to revoke" the doughnut jurisdiction, Hall said.

Hall said the county already has regulations to properly govern the doughnut area and protect water quality.

"Let the county govern the county," he said. "My main point last night was that they should use the money they are going to spend on this for enforcement of what's already on the books. The county is fully capable of taking care of water quality."

Hall argued that spending at least $250,000 per year to administer the ordinance was unreasonable.

Commissioner Dale Lauman also said he opposes the Whitefish ordinance as well as the doughnut area.

"It's regulation without representation," Lauman said. "If they can find a way to represent those people, that's OK. If they can't, they really need to look at the doughnut area. People are quite upset that they are being regulated but don't have any representation."

Brenneman said that although the issue of representation is valid, stepping in to completely revoke the doughnut area would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. He's interested in the city's most recent idea of creating a new board with residents from the city and the doughnut area that would advise the council.

"From my conversations with people in Whitefish, they are interested in a strategy to represent people in the doughnut," Brenneman said. "The idea that everyone in the doughnut area is better represented by three commissioners than people elected from their area … That's a strategy I certainly don't think we need to take."

Lauman and Hall both maintain the ordinance is a very confusing document that the average person won't be able to follow.

"An attorney from Washington, D.C., looked at the document and said it was confusing," Hall said. "If I had a piece of property, I'd have to hire someone to interpret this."

The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the ordinance will be tested with numerous lawsuits.

"All [the council] has done is set itself up for litigation," Hall said. "They've dug themselves a hole so deep they can't see daylight."

Brenneman, however, thinks the ordinance is a positive step at protecting water quality.

"I read through it, and if I were fortunate enough to own land in the Whitefish area, I'm pretty sure I could find the correct steps to take," he said. "Fundamentally, it's a duly-elected governing body making a decision on what they think they should do. That's democracy."

Reporter Michael Richeson may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at mricheson@dailyinterlake.com