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.