Ballot guide to doughnut fight

The power struggle between Flathead County and the city of Whitefish for planning control of the two-mile "doughnut" outside of Whitefish has become a political tsunami that has left both sides awash in frustration and uncertainty.

In the latest chapter of the doughnut saga, Whitefish city voters will decide in the upcoming election whether the city should keep or throw out the 2010 revised interlocal agreement for planning rights in the doughnut area. That revised agreement was considered by many to be a compromise.

Voters will find that even the language of the referendum is confusing. It refers to the repeal of "Resolution #10-46, which approved as Exhibit A the ‘Restatement of Cooperative Interlocal Agreement' with Flathead county regarding the city's extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction."

Exhibit A won't be attached to ballots, of course, and the only information voters will glean from the referendum wording is that the 2010 deal "alters what had been a mutual withdrawal requirement between the city and county in the previous interlocal agreement, and now permits either party to unilaterally terminate the 2010 interlocal agreement with one year's notice and without cause.

"Such a termination of the 2010 interlocal agreement would rescind the city of Whitefish's planning and zoning authority in the extraterritorial area," the referendum states.

Essentially, therefore, a yes vote on the referendum means you are FOR REPEAL of the 2010 agreement, and a no vote means you are AGAINST REPEAL of the 2010 agreement. Those of you who can vote should keep that in mind.

Unfortunately, residents of the doughnut area do NOT get to vote on the referendum that affects the future use of their property. We continue to assert that the referendum does nothing to get at the root of the problem - the lack of representation for doughnut area residents. That lack of representation was a key point in the county's decision to rescind the original 2005 interlocal agreement.

It seems likely that the only certainty in this power struggle is more litigation.

City officials seem to think that Whitefish will revert to the 2005 agreement if the 2010 agreement is repealed. The county begs to differ.

The 2005 agreement was rescinded by the county commissioners in early 2008, but during legal proceedings in a lawsuit filed by the city of Whitefish against the county, the judge returned the 2005 agreement to its status quo until the lawsuit was settled.

But since the lawsuit was dismissed as part of the 2010 agreement, the question many have is whether that status quo ruling would still apply today.

It's all very confusing, and at this point it seems unlikely for the city and county to find a compromise without the court system getting involved.

Ironically, the disenfranchised folks in this dilemma are the doughnut residents themselves, who, referendum or not, still don't have a voice in the city government that seeks to have a hand in their future.