In the continuing struggle to determine control of the two-mile planning “doughnut” around Whitefish, the city has asked a district court judge to allow it to retain control of the doughnut.

Whitefish filed a motion last week that asked Flathead District Court Judge David Ortley to stay his July 8 ruling that gave control of the doughnut to Flathead County. The city would like to retain control until it has a chance to appeal Ortley’s decision.

The city also asked the judge to restore the court’s February 2012 injunction that prevented the county from implementing interim zoning in the doughnut.

In its memo to the court, the city said the district court decision decided a legal issue and the “ultimate resolution of the legal issue will be in the Montana Supreme Court.”

The city says that it should be granted the stay order pending appeal because the state supreme court, in a previous Whitefish doughnut decision, said steps must be taken to protect the status quo until a ruling can be made.

Mayor John Muhlfeld said the city is disappointed by the court’s July 8 decision that allows “an abrupt change over to county land use and zoning.”

“The actions taken by the council are intended to maintain the status quo for the doughnut area throughout the appeal,” he said. “It will give the doughnut residents predictability and consistency during the appeal period and allow the city to continue its jurisdiction and administration of land use planning and zoning.”

Muhlfeld added that the city and county need to work together to resolve their current differences and find a way to work together for their mutual residents.

In response to the city’s request, the plaintiffs — four Whitefish residents who sued the county over the voter referendum that aimed to repeal the 2010 agreement for the doughnut — asked the court to deny Whitefish’s motion for a stay and restoration of the injunction.

They also claim that by filing its motion the city violated Montana’s open meetings laws.

Kalispell attorney Duncan Scott, representing the plaintiffs, noted in the motion that Whitefish is pursuing a turf battle with the county, and as both are public agencies the state law prohibits closed meetings to discuss litigation.

Scott claims no evidence exists that the city made its decision to file the latest motion in a public meeting.

“Despite the enormity of this request and its countywide impact, it appears that Whitefish made this decision in secret behind closed doors,” he said.

Scott also sent a letter to the city council requesting that the city video tape its Monday executive session. He asked that the tape be sent to a court reporter for transcribing and that be forwarded to Ortley for his review to determine if relevant portions of the transcript fall under the open meeting law.

In his July 8 decision, Ortley ruled the 2010 interlocal agreement between the city and county was legally terminated by the county. The decision paved the way for the county to take control of the doughnut.

He also ruled that the referendum that sought to repeal the 2010 agreement was illegal and therefore could not do away with the agreement.