The Whitefish City Council is expected to vote Nov. 15 on a revised interlocal agreement that includes language dismissing the city’s lawsuit with Flathead County.
At a Nov. 1 public meeting, City Attorney Mary VanBuskirk informed the council that the “Restatement of Cooperative Interlocal Agreement” should address the lawsuit between Whitefish and Flathead County.
As written, it does not.
The council then decided to table voting yet again on the amended agreement, which seeks to establish a suitable framework for governance in the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction – or doughnut – outside of Whitefish.
VanBuskirk has prepared language that calls for dismissing the lawsuit, which will be included in the agreement when council votes at a public hearing on Nov. 15. The county must also approve of dismissal, as must Flathead County District Court Judge Katherine Curtis.
But even before the council’s decision, there were concerns regarding the proposed agreement coming from multiple parties. At an Oct. 18 work session, Whitefish city councilors and Flathead County commissioners decided to pursue a separate memorandum of understanding to address representation for residents in the doughnut. Subsequently, a paragraph in the agreement that addresses representation was removed.
Citizens have questioned the public process involved with drafting the interlocal agreement and memorandum of understanding. The memorandum, which is still in its earliest stages of discussion, would establish a mechanism for the county to review legislation affecting the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The council is expected to give direction for the memorandum at its Nov. 15 meeting. A preliminary draft has been completed.
Sean Frampton, an attorney representing a third-party intervenor in the lawsuit, has indicated his clients won’t support an interlocal agreement that omits representation language.
“This paragraph was agreed upon by all attorneys involved in the case as a compromise to the parties’ various legal positions,” Frampton said. “Already a compromise, the complete removal of Paragraph 13 leaves the central issue in the lawsuit unresolved.”
He added: “Therefore, the intervenors will not agree to dismiss the lawsuit if the proposed interlocal agreement does not contain Paragraph 13 or a similar representation clause.”