Doughnut talks hit bump in the road

Progress toward resolving the dispute over Whitefish's two-mile planning and zoning "doughnut" area hit a bump in the road during the June 9 city-county meeting in the middle school board room.

Flathead County commissioner Jim Dupont and county representatives Lyle Mitchell and Diane Smith expressed dismay when city councilor Bill Kahle suggested extending negotiations for another 90 days and considering additional solutions, such as creating a "township" form of government for doughnut residents.

Kahle was passing on a request from the Whitefish City Council, which suggested the delay after hearing nine residents express their concerns during the council's June 7 meeting. All nine residents wanted negotiations slowed down so more public input could be taken.

County representatives, however, had expected to see suggested amendments to the interlocal agreement, which created the doughnut area in 2005, passed on to attorneys for drafting into a legal document sometime in the next few weeks.

Suggested amendments included adding termination language that would allow either party to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, and giving the county commissioners a voice in how city ordinances affect doughnut residents.

The county representatives were also surprised to hear mayor Mike Jenson say he wanted to continue the city's lawsuit because it was important to have the courts settle the termination issue for interlocal agreements.

Jenson pointed out that the city isn't willing to "gear up" for planning in the doughnut area, which could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if it isn't sure about how long the interlocal agreement will last.

Smith and Sean Frampton, both Whitefish attorneys, disagreed with Jenson's opinion that if Whitefish lost the lawsuit, it could renegotiate a new agreement with the county. They said it was their experience that parties don't typically get together to talk after a court ruling is made against one and in favor of another.

"I don't understand why the city wants to play chicken with the county," Smith, an attorney, said about the lawsuit.

Phillips asked if there was another way to get a legal opinion without taking the lawsuit all the way to the Montana Supreme Court.

"We're being held hostage here," he said.

A super-majority vote could address concerns that either side could gain veto power, city manager Chuck Stearns suggested, such as requiring a 3-0 vote by the county commissioners or a 5-2 vote by the city council.

Dupont reacted to the suggestion by doughnut resident Karen Reeves that county government is "volatile" and might eliminate its growth policy. He said an attempt led by American Dream Montana spokesman Russ Crowder to get rid of the county growth policy by petition won't succeed, and the commissioners won't back him.

Public input

Nine city and doughnut residents asked the city council on June 7 to slow down the doughnut negotiations, including Whitefish resident Magritte Bennett, who suggested only a few people were driving the debate.

Former councilor Frank Sweeney said he wanted doughnut area residents to have representation, but he also wanted the city to retain control because the city will eventually expand into the area.

Doughnut resident Mary Person warned that under current budget constraints, regulations implemented by the city to protect water quality and growth in rural areas might be lost if the county took over the doughnut.

Dick Zoellner, another doughnut resident, agreed with Person that many doughnut residents want those regulations. An accurate survey was needed to gauge the opinions of doughnut residents, he said.

Whitefish resident Rebecca Norton continued her call for holding a large public meeting in the O'Shaughnessy so doughnut residents could voice their concerns and learn about the city-county negotiations.

Former city councilor Nancy Woodruff said she was willing to pay city taxes to provide planning regulations for the doughnut area — but not if it was controlled by another entity. She said wrapping up the doughnut meetings by June 24 was not possible.

Mayor Mike Jenson followed up these comments by proposing the creation of a township government in the doughnut. Residents in the area could elect representatives in six naturally occurring districts, such as Whitefish Lake, Big Mountain, Haskill Basin, Highway 40, U.S. 93 and Karrow Avenue.

Kahle, who initiated the city-county doughnut meetings, said he was concerned the township idea would have legal problems and might need legislative action.

"I've been looking for the simplest answer," he said, adding that doughnut residents already have representation in the county commission.

He also recognized many of the public comments by doughnut residents and urged them to contact the county commissioners with their concerns.

Council debate

The council agreed to ask the county to delay the doughnut lawsuit another 90 days so negotiations could continue. But the sticking point continued to be wording in the interlocal agreement that prevents the city or the county from unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement.

Kahle and city attorney John Phelps disagreed on whether state law requires language in an interlocal agreement that sets a duration and a way for each party to leave. It was the county's unilateral rescinding of the agreement that led to the city's lawsuit.

Jenson warned that putting termination language in the interlocal agreement would give the county veto power.

Representation must be provided, councilor John Muhlfeld said, but the county should not get veto power.

Kahle pointed out that the city would be more careful with creating controversial regulations if they knew the county could withdraw from the agreement.

"How can we create an interlocal agreement without county participation?" he asked.

Councilor Ryan Friel noted that relations with the county commissioners might be good now, but that could change after an election. He also pointed out that the commissioners have a vast area and large population to oversee and might not understand local issues that well. A township government in that respect would provide better representation, he said.

Councilor Phil Mitchell said he disagreed with Phelps' legal interpretation of the interlocal agreement's termination clause. As for townships, it was just another layer of government that must be paid for with taxes, he said.