The Flathead County commissioners will allow the city of Whitefish to create a city planning board, but have declined Whitefish’s offer to help with the transition from city to county planning control in the embattled two-mile “doughnut” around Whitefish.

A Montana Supreme Court ruling in July made the divorce between the city and county official and handed control of the doughnut to the county. The ruling declared that a 2010 interlocal agreement between the city and county was not subject to referendum and was legally terminated by the county.

Whitefish’s offer to assist with planning services during the transition came with the caveat of a short-term agreement — a memorandum of understanding — between the two governing bodies. But a letter signed by the commissioners on Wednesday and sent to Whitefish said there will be no short-term agreement. The county is ready to immediately commence land-use planning in the doughnut area.

“The city of Whitefish’s offer of aid in the gradual transition of jurisdiction to Flathead County is appreciated,” the commissioners wrote. “However, given the city’s denial to exercise jurisdiction and the prompt need to serve the citizenry within the extraterritorial area, the county has no option but to begin administering immediate control over the [doughnut].”

The letter granted Whitefish permission under state law to create a city planning board, Flathead County Planning Director B.J. Grieve said.

“What I’ve observed is that Whitefish has graciously offered to help, but only if the county signs a memorandum of understanding,” Grieve said. “They (the commissioners) said ‘thank you for the offer, but we’ll take it from here.’

 “We just added 3,000 residents and 30 square miles” to the county’s planning workload, he added.

Grieve said the commissioners anticipated an increased workload in the county Planning Office and allowed the department to hire an additional full-time planner this year.

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruling was issued, Whitefish began directing planning inquiries to the county Planning Office.

“People are calling us daily,” Grieve said. “Whitefish is sending them to us now.”

Whitefish Planning Director Dave Taylor stated in a city press release last week that the court’s ruling “means that the city lacks the authority to assist members of the public with their properties located in the doughnut area. Individuals with planning and zoning issues in the doughnut are encouraged to direct their questions to the county.”

A preliminary plat extension request for the Wapiti Woods development planned in the doughnut area is among the first files transferred to the county for consideration. Taylor sent a letter to the county Planning Office along with the Wapiti Woods file, reiterating the city’s desire to entertain a temporary interlocal agreement “that might maintain status quo for the public’s sake to resolve what appears to currently be a jurisdictional no man’s land” until the county can adopt the needed changes to its zoning and growth policy.

There will be other projects that have been approved by the city that now will transition to the county as well, Grieve said.

And there are still many unanswered questions.

For example, if the city has issued a zoning violation in the doughnut, “do we now pick up the enforcement action and run with it?” Grieve asked. “The devil is in the details... We will strive to be as efficient, reasonable and as defensible as possible, and we’re asking for patience from the public as we try to come up to speed.”

Lakeshore regulations are another area to be addressed, Grieve said. Whitefish has adopted regulations for Whitefish, Lost Coon and Blanchard lakes, but the county will have to refer to lakeshore regulations in place prior to the original 2005 interlocal agreement and determine how to update those regulations.

“We had anticipated Whitefish would take their foot off the gas and coast, and then we (the county) would put on the accelerator,” Grieve said. “Now they’ve slammed on the brakes, and it’s taxing our engine. Our engine can handle it, but it will take some time.”

Whitefish had held out hope that the county would retain the current Whitefish City-County Planning Board that includes county residents. Since that didn’t happen, the Whitefish City Council will be tasked with appointing a board comprised entirely of city residents.

Whitefish Mayor John Muhlfeld also had expressed hope the city and county could work together to meet the needs of doughnut residents. That also will not happen, since the commissioners’ letter said the county will begin “administering authority instantaneously given the vacuum of governance in the [doughnut].”

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