A short history of the 'doughnut'

I apologize that I will not be able to attend your public hearing on Oct. 4 to answer the questions that I am sure this letter will generate but time, distance, economics and family obligations prevent me from being in Whitefish on Oct. 4. I am now the community development director for the city of Red Lodge, but I am writing this letter as an observer, with knowledge of this complex issue, and not as a Red Lodge representative. As such, the views or opinions stated herein are mine and mine alone!

I have been following the ongoing discussions of the Whitefish Interlocal agreement for the past two and one-half years with some interest but until I read the terms of the proposed settlement in the Whitefish Pilot, I had chosen to remain silent on the issue. I am breaking my silence because I find the terms of the proposed settlement to be egregious. (No offense to the parties that worked on the settlement, I recognize that you are trying to resolve a difficult situation that none of you created).

My career as a planner in the Flathead Valley began in 1998, working for the Flathead Regional Development Office (FRDO) as a senior planner. When the county withdrew from FRDO effective June 30, 2001, I became the county's first director of planning and zoning. At that time, Whitefish had a zoning "doughnut" of approximately one mile and a planning jurisdiction, used by the Planning Board and covered by the Growth Policy, of about 4 1/2 miles.

Whitefish was experiencing a period of considerable growth. Fully one-third of my staff of nine employees was dedicated to handling planning, zoning, subdivision, lakeshore, and floodplain issues around Whitefish, including Big Mountain. The equivalent of three full-time employees (myself included) was required just to keep up with the growth and issues surrounding Whitefish. Salaries alone were approximately $113,000 per year in 2003 dollars and wage rates.

My planning office needed to cover and service a county roughly the size of the state of Maryland. My office was staffed to deal mainly with rural wants and issues, and with rural county planning, zoning and subdivision designations. Handling the Whitefish area required us to also be experts in urban planning, zoning and subdivision issues, which are very different. While I believe my staff did a good job covering both types of planning and zoning, it simply made no sense for the county to maintain a specialty in urban planning, and devote one-third of its planning staff to Whitefish. In fact, about the time we got them trained up they went to work for a municipality because the pay was better.

As a result, the county commissioners and I approached the Whitefish City Council with a proposal to change the boundaries that my department had to cover and to allocate more responsibility to Whitefish. The proposal, which originated with the county, was to give Whitefish a full 2-mile "doughnut" which the county believed would take care of nearly all the growth that the area was experiencing and totally eliminate my department's Whitefish obligations.

The county insisted that Whitefish take everything that my department handled, not just planning (Growth Policy) and zoning. We insisted that Whitefish handle all Whitefish Lake issues, as the Lakeshore Protection Committee work was one of the most time-consuming. Further, we insisted that the city take subdivision responsibility and floodplain regulation. Since my department would continue to maintain an expertise in rural zoning issues, and because comparatively little growth was occurring in the more rural areas of the 4 1/2-mile Whitefish planning jurisdiction, the county proposed that the 4 1/2-mile planning jurisdiction shrink down to two miles, to correspond to the new proposed overall Whitefish jurisdiction.

Both the county commissioners and the city council heard and considered the argument that the "doughnut" residents would not be sufficiently represented by the city council but were not persuaded, for several reasons.

First, the city had a one-mile "doughnut" for more than 30 years, with virtually no complaints that those "doughnut" residents were under-represented. Second, half of the planning board and a sizable component of the Board of Adjustment would consist of residents of the "doughnut." Third, state law clearly sanctioned cities exercising planning, zoning and subdivision authority over a "doughnut." Fourth, with the mayor and all councilors living in the city, and therefore in close proximity to all areas of the "doughnut," the city council would naturally be inclined to give serious consideration to concerns raised by "doughnut" residents. We had no illusions that the city council could please all the "doughnut" residents, but neither could the commissioners, who were far less familiar with Whitefish and its issues. And finally, it was clear that Whitefish, and not the county, needed to control the community 's destiny.

I left my position with the county only a couple months before the 2005 Interlocal Agreement was signed, but I believed that the Interlocal Agreement was lawful and binding, and that the county intended to be bound by it. Chief Deputy County Attorney Jonathon Smith and Whitefish City Attorney John Phelps told me that the Interlocal Agreement was "as bullet-proof as possible." We understood that the Whitefish City Council would decide some issues differently than the commissioners would decide the same issues, and it was reasonable, and acceptable that they would do so.

While possibly less than perfect, the original 2005 Interlocal Agreement was in my opinion a forward-looking and workable document. I know the county was sure that it could lawfully enter into the agreement, and how much we would benefit from the agreement. I am stunned that the county now claims that the agreement is illegal. guess that's what the courts and lawyers are for.

I have grave doubts about many of the proposed amendments to the Interlocal Agreement. They are set out below:

1. The agreement states that it has a five-year term, which is far too short for this type of agreement to work. And yet with a one-year termination notice provision, it's really only a one-year agreement.

2. Why would the city agree that the county can review and cancel valid zoning ordinances adopted over the last five years? It's a catastrophic waste of resources and staff time. Without substantially increasing its planning staff, which I understand has recently been reduced, the city can't hope to engage in a review and defense of past zoning ordinances, while trying to stay on top of the current workload. And the workload will undoubtedly increase as the economy improves and growth picks up.

3. Allowing the commissioners veto power over any new zoning ordinances effectively eliminates the Whitefish City Council as an effective planning and zoning body. Cities have legitimate interests and needs that in some cases are opposite from the legitimate interests and needs of counties. Those interests are expressed largely by your respective planning, zoning and subdivision ordinances.

4. Enormous staff resources and time for both the city and county will be wasted on zoning ordinances that make sense for Whitefish but that may ultimately be vetoed by the commissioners. In many cases, Whitefish probably won't even consider valid ideas and proposals for fear that the commissioners will veto the proposal after much effort has been expended. Read as increased cost to both city and county taxpayers. The best part is Whitefish residents get to pay twice.

5. The county commissioners are going to actively go out and recruit staff with municipal experience that they trust to make a thorough evaluation of zoning proposals initiated by the city. Read as increased cost to county taxpayers.

The way I see it, you have two options, fight or flight. In my humble opinion, the negotiated settlement is not in either party's long-term best interest.

Fight: Before the council considers any amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, it would seem logical to establish the legality of the one they propose to modify. Why waste the time and money editing something that as some assert isn't even legal? I suggest that the parties allow the courts to issue a final decision on the 2005 Interlocal Agreement. Once that is decided, the parties will be in an informed position to consider amendments or the issue will be moot.

Flight: If the city council were so inclined to approve these amendments, I submit that you are better off to just eliminate the doughnut and allow the county to take over all land use control up to the city's boundaries. In effect, that's what these amendments do or worse. These amendments in my opinion represent total abdication of authority to the county, and your ultimate bruised and battered retreat to the Whitefish city limits. If you want out, now is the time — just turn your back, take your ball and walk off the court.

Typically, at this point I feel inclined to provide a governing body with a recommended course of action. The fact of the matter is I deleted my recommendation because I will not have to pay for the action or suffer the consequence. As such, I submit it is unjust for me to be so bold as to advise or recommend to you any course of action. Let me leave it as I will respect your decision regardless of the one you make.

Forrest Sanderson lives in Red Lodge.