Page 6 - Flathead Beacon // 7.23.14

6 | JULY 23, 2014 NEWS FLATHEADBEACON.COM High Court Sides With County in Doughnut Dispute
READER POLL
FLATHEADBEACON.COM
Should the U.S. Become More Involved with the Conflict in Ukraine?
13% YES 87% NO TOTAL VOTES: 126
Does the Federal Government do an Adequate Job Managing Public Lands?
42% YES 58% NO TOTAL VOTES: 115
Should the Government Increase the Fuel Tax to Pay for Roads?
52% YES 48% NO TOTAL VOTES: 105
ONLINE POLL RESULTS ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC
Court issues new ruling in years-long lawsuit over land use and regulation
By MOLLY PRIDDY of the Beacon
The Montana Supreme Court has sided with Flathead County in the long-ranging dispute between the county and Whitefish about land use and planning in the area around the city, known as the doughnut.
Last July, Flathead County District Court Judge David Ortley granted sum- mary judgment to the county, which the city disputed and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit has been ongoing for years, beginning after the Flathead Coun- ty Commission voted in 2008 to rescind a 2005 interlocal agreement with Whitefish over jurisdiction of the doughnut.
Whitefish sued in response to the re- scindment and the issue has been tied up in litigation ever since. The city and county tried to resolve the issue outside of court, which produced the 2010 interlocal agree- ment that is a central issue in the lawsuit.
In November 2011, Whitefish city vot- ers repealed the 2010 interlocal agreement through a referendum vote, after which four residents filed a lawsuit asking Ortley to declare the referendum illegal and void, arguing that it was an administrative, rather than legislative, act.
The city of Whitefish and four inter- veners, however, argued the referendum was legal and valid, and that the county and Whitefish should revert back to the original 2005 agreement.
Ortley ruled that the referendum was invalid, and that the 2010 agreement was in effect. His decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 in favor of the county last week.
According to the court’s synopsis of the opinion: “The Court determined that the City’s decision to enter into the new agreement was a predominately adminis- trative act not subject to referendum. The Court noted that, in particular, the new agreement only changed a small portion of the prior agreement, did not actually de- clare any land-use policies or changes, did not remove the City’s power to regulate
Whitefish downtown from Big Mountain. BEACON FILE PHOTO land use in the donut, and was entered af-
ter extensive negotiations for the purpose of settling already lengthy litigation in or- der to restore a cooperative relationship between the parties.”
The dissenting justices wrote that since the agreement concerned land-use planning and regulation, the decision to enter it was “unmistakably legislative,” and that parts of the 2010 agreement were significant policy changes.
Whitefish Mayor John Muhlfeld re- leased a statement noting his disappoint- ment with the high court’s decision, but also offered a hopeful outlook as the whole situation moves forward.
“While the City may not necessar- ily agree with the decision, we have to live with it, and find a way to work coop- eratively with the County to protect the community values that make Whitefish such a special and desirable place to live, work and raise families,” Muhlfeld said. “The City and County share similar val- ues, interests, and have had many positive and mutually agreeable meetings on these common issues over the years. Now that we have a clarification of the legal standing of the 2005 Interlocal Agreement, and the legal issues involved in the doughnut juris- diction issue in order to follow the wishes of our voters in the referendum, we look forward to continuing this dialogue with the County.”
Attorney Duncan Scott, who repre- sented the four plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the high court’s ruling is a victory for “the thousands of doughnut residents who have suffered nearly a decade under Whitefish’s ‘regulation without represen- tation’ form of government.”
“Our County Commissioners de- serve high praise for fighting hard against Whitefish’s unconscionable position that it should be allowed to regulate forever people who cannot vote in city elections. Our Commissioners have never wobbled in their legal support for doughnut resi- dents’ rights during these six long years of litigation,” Scott wrote in a prepared statement. “Now that the Supreme Court has given Flathead County a green light to take over the doughnut, the Commission- ers should move swiftly to adopt interim doughnut zoning, which under state law will terminate Whitefish’s doughnut juris- diction.”
However, Flathead County Commis- sioner Pam Holmquist said the county would likely take its time to understand the ramifications of the ruling, and any ac- tion moving forward would be deliberate and transparent.
“Whatever it is, it will be a public pro- cess,” Holmquist said of the county’s plan for the doughnut area. “It is going to take some time. Nothing is done quickly.”
[email protected]
COMING SOON TO STUMPTOWN MARKET IN DOWNTOWN WHITEFISH!
Furnishings and Design for the way you live now.
123 Main St., Kalispell MT • 756-8555 • WWW.KALISPELLFURNITURE.COM