The city of Whitefish has responded to the Montana Supreme Court's July 14 ruling in favor of Flathead County in the long-running Whitefish “doughnut” jurisdiction battle.

The following is a prepared statement from the city of Whitefish:

The Montana Supreme Court denied the City's appeal on a 4-3 vote whether the referendum validly rescinded the City's authority to enter into the 2010 Interlocal Agreement for a change to one-year planning and zoning authority in the extraterritorial area, the so-called “doughnut” surrounding the City.  

John Muhlfeld, the Mayor of the City of Whitefish, explained, “while the City may not necessarily agree with the decision, we have to live with it, and find a way to work cooperatively with the County to protect the community values that make Whitefish such a special and desirable place to live, work and raise families.” 

Mayor Muhlfeld explained “The City and County share similar values, 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 jurisdiction issue in order to follow the wishes of our voters in the referendum, we look forward to continuing this dialogue with the County,” said Mayor Muhlfeld.

Mayor Muhlfeld said the City is committed to protect its watershed and drinking supply, its corridors and gateways, and its immediate surroundings. He believes the best way to address these common interests and values are through dialogue and communication. The City remains open and available to engage the Flathead County Commissioners in addressing what type of planning and zoning is in the interest of both the City and the County and in the interest of all the affected citizens said Mayor Muhlfeld.  

The Court determined the City voters' referendum was principally an administrative matter not subject to the voter's power of referendum relying on a four-part test adopted from a 1994 Kansas Court decision.  In the majority opinion written by Justice Jim Rice, the Court did not address whether the lawsuit was filed in a timely manner or other issues raised by the parties, having determined the invalidity of the referendum.    

Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justices Patricia Cotter and Michael Wheat  dissented from the majority's resolution of the case, finding instead that the referendum was legislative in nature and thus subject to referendum by the voters.  The dissent relied on the specific facts presented in the appeal rather than the majority opinion's four-part test, which the dissenting justices found "vague, confusing and awkward to apply.”

The three dissenting justices found “[t]he facts of this case show the unmistakable legislative nature of the act at issue. The City Council of Whitefish adopted Resolution 10-46, which by its title, approved the restatement of the City-County Interlocal Agreement concerning zoning. There can be no argument that adoption of an interlocal agreement is a legislative act, because the agreement gave the city authority to zone in the donut, or, phrased alternatively, created new law.  Since adoption of a zoning ordinance would be a legislative act, it follows that an act granting such authority must also be a legislative act. Further, even if Resolution 10-46 simply adopted the agreement again, it would not lose its legislative nature.”