Referendum proposed to reject 'doughnut deal'
A referendum has been proposed to give Whitefish voters a chance to reject a recently revised city/county agreement on planning control of Whitefish’s two-mile planning “doughnut.”
At the same time, a citizens initiative is under way to create an elected community council of doughnut residents.
Both citizen-driving efforts come in the wake of a revised interlocal agreement approved by both the Whitefish City Council and Flathead County commissioners. Both the referendum and initiative petitions need approval for form and compliance with state law before collecting signatures can begin, Flathead County Election Manager Monica Eisenzimer said.
Sometimes the approval from the County Attorney’s Office can take a few months, Eisenzimer said. Once city and county attorneys have reviewed the proposed petitions and the Election Department gives the nod, supporters of both efforts will have 90 days to collect the needed number of signatures.
If referendum supporters are able to gather signatures from 15 percent of registered Whitefish city voters, the referendum would appear on the November 2011 election ballot.
Likewise, the proposal for a citizens initiative to form a doughnut community council also needs voter support to get on next year’s ballot. Fifteen percent of the registered voters in the doughnut area must sign the petition to get the measure on the ballot.
Supporters cite “overwhelming public opposition” to the restated interlocal agreement at both the city and county level as the basis for the referendum.
Several people who testified at the city’s public hearing said they believe Whitefish should proceed with its lawsuit against the county over doughnut control. Part of the recent deal between the city and county, however, is the dismissal of that lawsuit. The city sued the county after the county commissioners rescinded the original 2005 interlocal agreement two years ago, essentially citing irreconcilable differences.
Referendum supporters pointed to the City Council’s recent failure to act on proposal for mandatory zoning compliance permits as evidence of how the restated agreement “has crippled the city’s ability to govern itself effectively.” The compliance permits would allow the city to better enforce its zoning and prevent additional nonconforming businesses on U.S. 93 S.
“Unsure about how the county, under the terms of the new interlocal agreement, would now view the city’s attempt to enact legislation spilling over into the doughnut, a majority of councilors simply refused to act without consulting the county commissioners,” a press release from the citizens group said.
Referendum supporters are worried that unless the new agreement is overturned, many key city laws aimed at protecting resources in Whitefish and maintaining small-town characters could be reversed by the county commissioners.
“The City Council has left people who care about the future of Whitefish little choice but to challenge their adoption of the restated interlocal agreement,” referendum leader Richard Hildner said. “When a council acts against such broad opposition from the community, and against its own ability to function efficiently, it should come as no surprise to them that people feel compelled to take matters directly to the voters.”
In addition to Hildner, Ed McGrew and former state Sen. Dan Weinberg are heading up the referendum proposal.
Mary Person, Marilyn Nelson and John Collins are leading the initiative effort.
The idea of a community council has been bounced around for months, but the City Council maintained such a council was not something it could put in place.
Marilyn Nelson said there’s nothing in the restated agreement that gives doughnut residents a voice in matters affecting their property.
“Only an elected community council will fill that void, and that is why we are bringing this measure to the voters,” she said.
Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.