Questions remain after repeal vote

Whitefish voters easily passed the

ballot referendum in the recent election — but more complex and

laborious questions still remain about what happens next with the

city’s planning doughnut.

“I don’t know what happens,” Whitefish

City Councilor Bill Kahle said last week. Kahle is a council

representative on the City-County Interlocal Agreement

Committee.

“We’ve heard two things. It’s going to

be a mess.”

The voter-approved referendum

questioned Resolution 10-46, or the Restated 2010 Interlocal

Agreement between Whitefish and Flathead County regarding planning

authority in the two-mile area around Whitefish. Voters chose to

repeal the resolution with 1,444 votes for repeal and 738

against.

As per state law, a similar agreement

may not be reenacted by a governing body for two years.

City attorney Mary VanBuskirk has said

the nullification of the 2010 document could bring back the 2005

Interlocal Agreement. County commissioners, however, question if

the 2005 agreement still exists, setting up what could be a

litigious battle.

City Manager Chuck Stearns said last

week that VanBuskirk and the county attorney are planning to meet

to see if there is agreement about which document, if any, is in

place. Stearns is also attempting to organize another committee

meeting. The committee last met Nov. 3.

“We’ll see where we are and if there is

anywhere to go,” Stearns said. “I don’t know if there will be.”

Flathead County commissioner Jim Dupont

said Monday that the county is willing to meet with city

representatives if there is a chance for compromise.

“But we’re not going to waste our time

if no one is willing to change their mind,” he said.

The county has cited some city

ordinances they want altered or thrown out in the doughnut planning

area, including the Critical Areas and the Dark Sky ordinances.

Kahle, who was against the referendum,

said he hopes the referendum supporters have a plan of action

following repeal.

“My hope is that city will continue to

have control in doughnut,” he said. “And I hope [the referendum

sponsors] have thought out the results of a victory.”

Referendum sponsor and councilor-elect

Richard Hildner told the Pilot on Monday that both the city and

county have a two-year opportunity to find middle ground.

“We have a window of opportunity, if

both the county and city are willing to crawl through it,” Hildner

said. “If we can both set all differences aside and settle in on

the 2005 agreement, it gives us two years to get it right. That

includes everything from ordinances, planning, a citizen advisory

council — all things that have been mentioned — we have an

opportunity to put it together. It doesn’t have to be litigation,

but it’s going to require a lot of faith and trust on all

sides.”

Dupont said the county will have a

better idea about how to proceed after results are calculated from

a recent survey sent to doughnut residents. The survey asked if

doughnut residents would rather have the county or city in control

of planning the area.

The county was counting votes as of

Tuesday afternoon and expected results by Wednesday.