Whitefish 'doughnut' agreement stalled

The Whitefish City Council on Monday stalled a decision on a proposed compromise for planning control of the city’s two-mile “doughnut” area after it was discovered that language in a revised interlocal agreement essentially would have wiped out all regulations in the doughnut.

After a three-hour public hearing at which 47 people testified, the council tabled a decision on the doughnut agreement until it can be revised. A second public hearing will be held, tentatively on Oct. 18, but the date is contingent on the council and Flathead County commissioners coming together for a meeting beforehand.

The misstep in the wording of the compromise is the latest twist in a saga that began when the county abruptly rescinded its interlocal agreement with Whitefish in 2008, claiming county residents had no representation when city laws such as the critical-areas ordinance extend to the doughnut.

Earlier this year a committee of city and county representatives began meeting to try to find common ground and a way to resolve a lawsuit filed by Whitefish against the county.

Wording of how new legislation would be enacted proved to be problematic in two places, the council agreed.

First, by inserting Feb. 1, 2005 (the date of the original interlocal agreement) instead of the “effective date of this agreement” in a sentence about how the two parties will agree on land-use laws, the document would have “wiped the slate clean” of any land-use regulations in the doughnut.

Also troubling was a sentence stating “existing legislation shall remain in effect [in the doughnut] until the county commission revokes consent.”

Prior to the council meeting, the county commissioners unanimously approved the revised interlocal agreement Monday morning after taking public comments — though not in a formal public hearing format.

Commissioner Jim Dupont, who pushed for the city and county to work together, said the county’s mission in the doughnut issue remains two-fold: “We want representation for the residents and we want a way to break it [the interlocal agreement] if they go crazy,” he said, referring to heavy-handed city regulation in the doughnut.

Dupont acknowledged on Tuesday that the wording problem was “a legitimate find” and that the commissioners will have to vote on an amendment to correct it.  

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead said she asked about the document’s language and about the public-notice requirement for the commissioners’ meeting on Monday, but said that Alan McCormick, the county’s legal counsel in the doughnut lawsuit, advised the commissioners that they were “probably fine” on both accounts.

“They didn’t even have the document,” she said. “This is a good wake-up call on how easily [mistakes can be made] if the documents aren’t in front of them.”

Flowers questioned the county’s late notice for Monday’s meeting. Though it was listed as discussion on the interlocal agreement on the commissioners’ agenda, the public comment component wasn’t added until either late Friday night or early Monday morning, she said.

Whitefish City Council member John Muhlfeld brought the wording problem to the council’s attention during a work session prior to the council’s public hearing.

Whitefish attorney and former council member Frank Sweeney was among those who testified at the hearing. He noted afterwards that even if the revised interlocal agreement’s wording is changed, there’s no “exclusivity for initiating land-use decisions in that area ... there’s nothing that limits the county’s ability to make changes.”

And the document still doesn’t fix the representation issue, he said.

Both the city and county are intrigued with a citizen-driven proposal to form a community council of doughnut residents, but there’s no mechanism yet to put it in place.

Sweeney also is concerned about language in the revised agreement that says it would be in effect for five years, yet gives the parties the ability to give notice of termination at least one year in advance.

“The bottom line is it’s still a one-year termination,” he said.

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