County OKs 'doughnut' deal

Acknowledging it’s not a perfect document but “a good start on the road to recovery,” the Flathead County commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved a revised interlocal agreement for the two-mile planning “doughnut” outside the city of Whitefish.

The commissioners traveled to Whitefish and listened to community input before making a decision.

The Whitefish City Council approved the revised agreement on Nov. 15 and also agreed to authorize city officials to ask Flathead District Court to dismiss the city’s lawsuit against the county over control of the doughnut area.

The new agreement, which will be bound together with a forthcoming memorandum of understanding of how the county and city will work together to govern the doughnut area, aims to put to rest two years of wrangling between Whitefish and the county.

A major rift between the two governing bodies occurred when the county abruptly rescinded the interlocal agreement in 2008 in response to what it deemed heavy-handed legislation without representation in the doughnut area.

The critical area ordinance, which put restrictions on building in drainage-sensitive areas in the doughnut area, was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

“We’ve had a major split, but there shouldn’t be a split between Whitefish and the county,” Commissioner Jim Dupont stressed. “And the split won’t go away unless we talk to each other.”

As the commissioner representing the North Valley, Dupont was part of a committee that negotiated a revised agreement that both sides could agree upon.

Commissioner Joe Brenneman said the county and city need to be able to trust each other, and “there’s no way to know until we start down that path.

“I hope this represents the start of a much more cooperative arrangement between the city and county,” Brenneman said.

Further legal action still is possible.

Intervenors to the lawsuit have indicated they won’t support the compromise because language in the revised interlocal agreement that dealt specifically with providing representation to residents of the doughnut was removed as the two sides compromised.

Their lawyer, Sean Frampton, said the intervenors will not agree to dismiss the lawsuit if the interlocal agreement doesn’t adequately address the representation issue.

Whitefish attorney Sharon Morrison told the commissioners she believes the revised interlocal agreement is illegal because state law dictates it’s unlawful for a governing body — the county in this case — to delegate a government function to another government body without authorization from the Legislature.

Morrison said the agreement also is unconstitutional because it does an end run around the initiative and referendum processes, essentially taking away the doughnut residents’ constitutional rights.

Frank Sweeney, another Whitefish attorney, said neither the agreement nor the memorandum of understanding fully addresses the representation issue. He said more consideration should be given to a local governing board, a kind of community council that could represent the doughnut area.

“Signing it [the revised agreement] now just to say we did something” isn’t right, Sweeney said.

Yet another local attorney, Diane Smith, said she supports the agreement.

“What’s important is that Whitefish and the county can get back to negotiating and listening to each other,” she said. “At the end of the day this restores the balance of power to two entities.”

Smith said the revised agreement essentially will allow Whitefish to control land-use decisions in the doughnut, but also allows the county to step in “if Whitefish gets too out of control.”

Several Whitefish residents said they oppose the agreement. Some want the lawsuit to continue; others said the representation issue remains unresolved.

“I don’t like you guys leaving us without any representation,” Bruce Meyer told the commissioners. “I want you to hang in there with us.”

Jan Metzmaker said she doesn’t like the one-year termination provision and wondered if the memorandum of understanding will be effective.

“It’s like a pig in a poke,” Metzmaker said. “You don’t know which ordinances will be reviewed or how much it will cost.”

Right now there are four to six past city decisions affecting land use in the doughnut — passed while the original interlocal agreement was in place — that the commissioners want to review.

The one-year termination notice is intended to give either party time to fix any problems and work toward resolution. The lack of a termination clause in the original agreement was a key concern.

Commissioner Dale Lauman agreed with the other two commissioners, saying the revised agreement isn’t perfect but “it’s three steps in the right direction.”

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com