Candidates on the doughnut

Four of the five candidates for Flathead County commissioner say they would have voted to rescind the interlocal agreement between the county and Whitefish that created the city's two-mile planning and zoning "doughnut" jurisdiction.

The fifth candidate, Democratic incumbent Joe Brenneman, says he voted against rescinding the agreement because he saw an opportunity to negotiate a settlement without dragging the city and county into an expensive lawsuit.

The candidates' views on the doughnut were obtained through a survey conducted by Rick Blake and his one-man political action committee, We Love Stumptown PAC.

On March 17, 2008, the Whitefish City Council voted 5-1 to sue the county about a week after the county commissioners voted 2-1 to unilaterally rescind the interlocal agreement. Councilor Ryan Friel cast the lone nay vote, saying he would like to improve dialogue with the commissioners.

When explaining their vote to rescind the agreement, former commissioner Gary Hall and current commissioner Dale Lauman cited regulation without representation by the city, in particular Whitefish's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).

According to Blake's survey, Republican candidates Howard Gipe, Pam Holmquist and Patrick Nickol and Democratic candidate Noel Gorton all said they would have voted to rescind the interlocal agreement if they had been in office at the time. They also agreed that the county commissioners should have a final say on land-use issues in the doughnut area.

Gipe said he had always opposed the interlocal agreement while he was in office and claims Hall waited until Gipe had left in 2004 and Brenneman was elected to get the interlocal agreement drafted and approved.

Brenneman says an opportunity to settle the issue without rescinding the interlocal agreement arose during meetings in March 2008 between the county and Whitefish over the new 911 dispatch center. Talk at the time had turned to creating a special district encompassing the county and the three cities for funding the dispatch center.

Brenneman says former Whitefish city manager Gary Marks brought up the idea of creating a similar district to provide representation to the doughnut area. Marks said a six-member board consisting of three Whitefish representatives and three doughnut residents appointed by the commissioners could review land-use issues in the doughnut before the issues went to the Whitefish City Council.

"I said that something like that might work if the city would suspend the CAO and any other regulation imposed since the advent of the original interlocal agreement with Whitefish was signed," Brenneman said in Blake's survey.

Brenneman says Marks told him he believed the Whitefish City Council might go along with this idea, but politics stopped the idea from being developed.

"Before I had a chance to even suggest this course of action, the proposal to rescind the interlocal agreement appeared on our agenda," Brenneman said in the survey. "I pleaded with the other two commissioners to delay our action so that we could begin official negotiations with the Whitefish City Council to resolve the issues for the good of all, but it appeared that positions were firmly established, and with a primary election in the near future, I am convinced that this was a largely political move with little consideration for a negotiated agreement."

Brenneman went on to say he believes Whitefish might win its lawsuit and that "this appears to be a very real possibility at the Montana Supreme Court level." He also said he knew insurance would not cover the county's legal costs, and the legal cost to county taxpayers is now more than $40,000.

While Gipe contends "there is no doughnut as far as I am concerned," Holmquist and Nickol suggest resolving the dispute with mediation or some kind of compromise in which doughnut residents end up with representation. Gorton suggests the Whitefish city councilors "listen to your neighbors, friends, even family and follow your creed."

Brenneman said Whitefish city councilor Bill Kahle contacted him shortly after he became a city councilor about beginning negotiations outside of the courtroom. After talking about the idea with the other two county commissioners, it was decided to hand the matter over to commissioner Jim Dupont, who defeated Hall in the 2008 Republican primary.

The city and the county agreed to ask Flathead County District Court Judge Katherine Curtis to delay a decision in the doughnut lawsuit, and negotiations between the city and the county are moving forward.

'Doughnut' meetings produce four 'concepts'

By RICHARD HANNERS Whitefish Pilot

Meetings between the city and county over the future of Whitefish's two-mile extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction are continuing to make progress, councilor Bill Kahle reported to the Whitefish City Council at their May 17 meeting.

Kahle, councilor Chris Hyatt and city manager Chuck Stearns represent the city at the meetings. Flathead County commissioner Jim Dupont and doughnut residents Diane Smith and Lyle Phillips represent the county.

The intent of the meetings is to resolve issues by negotiation and avoid lengthy and costly litigation. The city sued the county after it unilaterally rescinded the interlocal agreement that created the doughnut area.

Kahle said the representatives at the last meeting narrowed down four "concepts' that could be brought back to the city council for review and approval. They include:

- Provide representation to doughnut residents by involving the county commissioners in any regulations the city council approves that affect doughnut property.

- Establish a duration period for the interlocal agreement of three to five years, at which time it would go through a review process by the city and county.

- Include a termination clause in the interlocal agreement.

- Take a look at the doughnut area's boundaries.

Councilor John Muhlfeld noted that these concepts would create a joint planning district, and he wanted the county to pay part of the cost of planning in the doughnut area.

Mayor Mike Jenson said he agreed.

"If they have veto power, they should pay half," he said, adding that he thought a six-month termination period might be too short.

Councilor Phil Mitchell said he also agreed about sharing the costs with the county. He also noted that it wasn't his intention to eliminate the city's critical areas and dark skies ordinances or the city's growth policy because "they're already passed."

"I just want some tweaks," he said. "I want to work with the county."

Rebecca Norton, a Whitefish resident who has attended the doughnut meetings, continued to express her concerns about conflicts of interest and potential weakening of environmental regulations.

She noted that the intent of the meetings has been to develop a "process' for the city and county to create regulations that govern the doughnut area, but not specific issues like the city's critical areas and dark skies ordinances.

"Why not?" she asked.

She said she'd rather see the negotiations slow down and take into account how they might affect these ordinances.

The council agreed to put the four concepts on the next meeting's agenda.