Attorneys finish draft doughnut agreement

Two months after the Whitefish City Council unanimously agreed to let three attorneys work on an amendment to the interlocal agreement that establishes the city's two-mile planning and zoning jurisdiction, a draft is available for public review.

In one option, the county commissioners can stop the city from imposing regulations on property inside the the two-mile "doughnut" area by withholding consent. In another option, the city can accept or reject the county commissioners' comments on new regulations in the doughnut.

The draft amendment is the next step in resolving the city's lawsuit against Flathead County for unilaterally rescinding the interlocal agreement that created the doughnut area. A joint city-county negotiating committee met for several months earlier this year and came up with four concepts to be included in a new agreement.

The concepts included providing representation to doughnut residents by involving the county commissioners in any regulations the city council approves that affect doughnut property; establishing a duration period and a termination clause for the agreement; and looking at the doughnut area's boundaries.

Those concepts were handed off to three attorneys on June 21 to fashion into appropriate legal language — Whitefish city attorney Mary VanBuskirk; Missoula attorney Alan McCormick, who represents the county; and Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton, who represents intervenors in the lawsuit. Sharon Morrison, who works in Frampton's office, also participated.

The draft amendment — the third since the interlocal agreement was put into effect in 2005 — calls for continuing the Whitefish City-County Planning Board and the Whitefish Lakeshore Protection Committee as they currently exist.

The city and county would continue to cooperate in changing county zoning designations in the doughnut area to city designations, and the city's interest in protecting highway corridors and the Haskill Creek watershed is included in the agreement. The parties would also continue to meet yearly to discuss topics covered by the agreement.

New to the agreement is a provision limiting the interlocal agreement to a five-year term and a process for either the city or the county to withdraw. A party wishing to withdraw must inform the other party at least one year prior and specify the nature and grounds for withdrawing.

While the city will continue to be responsible for planning, zoning, subdivision, lakeshore and floodplain administration — and continue to bear the costs for administering those regulations — three options in the draft describe the county's role in creating new regulations that affect property owners in the doughnut area:

¥ In Option A, new regulations enacted by the Whitefish City Council will not become effective in the doughnut area "until the county commissioners have granted consent."

The commissioners can withhold consent by a majority vote. They can also conduct their own public hearings on new regulations, but the county must reimburse the city for costs of city staff who attend the public hearings.

¥ In Option B, the city would provide the county an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and "give due weight and consideration to the county's comments." The city would provide the county with a written explanation within 15 days of passage of new regulations "describing its decision to accept, reject or modify the county's comments."

¥ Option C would eliminate the section containing the three options.

The draft amendment to the interlocal agreement will be presented to the city-county negotiating committee before it will go to the county commissioners and the city council for review. The committee could meet next in late August or early September.