'Doughnut' referendum proposal approved

A proposed referendum aimed at throwing out a revised interlocal agreement for the Whitefish “doughnut area” has been cleared for takeoff by Whitefish City Attorney Mary VanBuskirk.

Supporters were given the go-ahead on Wednesday to begin collecting signatures from Whitefish city voters, Flathead County Election Manager Monica Eisenzimer said.

If referendum supporters are able to gather valid signatures from 15 percent of registered Whitefish city voters by the April 12 deadline, the referendum would appear on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

A total of 707 signatures must be gathered within the 90-day time frame. There were 4,714 registered Whitefish voters at the last election in November 2010.

The ballot issue would give voters a chance to keep or reject a recently revised agreement between the county and city over governance of the doughnut, the two-mile planning area that surrounds Whitefish.

Another citizen-driven effort, an initiative to create a community council of doughnut residents, was rejected last week by the County Attorney’s Office.

Supporters of the referendum say there was “overwhelming public opposition” to the revised agreement.

Several people who testified at the city’s public hearing on the revised agreement said they believe Whitefish should proceed with its lawsuit against the county over doughnut control. Part of the recent deal between the city and county, however, involves dismissal of that lawsuit.

The city sued the county after the county commissioners rescinded the original 2005 interlocal agreement two years ago, essentially citing irreconcilable differences.

Referendum supporters also argue that the new agreement “has crippled the city’s ability to govern itself effectively” because City Council members are unsure how the county will react to city legislation that spills into the doughnut area.

They worry that unless the new agreement is overturned, many key city laws — like the critical area ordinance — aimed at protecting natural resources in Whitefish could be reversed by the county commissioners.

Kalispell attorney Duncan Scott, who represents several doughnut area residents, said he “vigorously disagrees” with VanBuskirk’s view that the doughnut settlement terms are subject to referendum.

“Initiatives and referendums are limited to legislative matters, and settling a lawsuit is an administrative, not legislative function,” Scott said.

Scott also opposed the failed initiative effort for the doughnut community council.

“If settlement decisions can be overturned by referendum, it means local governments won’t be able to settle cases because the other side will know the government cannot make a binding decision when it can be overturned by a later public vote,” he said.

 Scott further maintains the city attorney’s legal view puts the city in breach of the warranties it made to Flathead County in settling the lawsuit, when the city signed an agreement that states, “each party represents and warrants that the agreement is lawful and binding on the parties, and enforceable...”

“Now the city attorney is saying the agreement she reviewed and approved is not binding on the parties; instead, it is subject to referendum,” he added.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com