Flathead County commissioners agreed Monday to start the process toward governing zoning and planning issues in the two-mile area surrounding the city of Whitefish.

Their action came in response to the vote earlier this month by residents of Whitefish to repeal a 2010 interlocal agreement between the city and the county on zoning and planning issues in the "doughnut" area outside Whitefish.

The 2010 agreement was a revision of a 2005 interlocal agreement. The 2005 agreement gave the city of Whitefish full control of planning issues in the doughnut but it was rescinded by county commissioners in 2008, prompting the city of Whitefish to sue.

The lawsuit was dismissed as part of the 2010 revised interlocal agreement.

City and county officials disagree about the status of the 2005 agreement in light of the Nov. 8 vote.

City officials have said the 2005 agreement is again in place but county officials disagree.

The 2005 agreement "went away" by action of the court, Dupont said. He said that opinion is shared by the other two commissioners and the county attorney.

"I don't believe the 2005 agreement exists, which puts us in a dilemma," Dupont said.

The Nov. 8 vote, Dupont said, "obviously creates issues with the county. We certainly don't agree that the vote" to repeal the 2010 agreement means the 2005 agreement again becomes effective.

"It's not going to be a free-for-all regarding zoning in the doughnut," Dupont said. "We want to make sure we do the right thing for the people who live there."

Dupont said he thinks asking city residents to decide an issue that doesn't affect them and not allowing doughnut residents to vote on the referendum was the wrong approach.

"City residents have no skin in the game," he said, "and doughnut people couldn't vote."

That said, Dupont recommended to Commissioners Dale Lauman and Pam Holmquist that "the county take back jurisdiction of the doughnut."

Flathead County Planning Director BJ Grieve explained the various options to implement zoning in the doughnut to commissioners.

Commissioners favored implementing temporary zoning regulations.

A vote on beginning that process is expected to be on the Nov. 28 commissioners' agenda.

Establishing an interim zoning plan would take about five weeks and has a maximum two-year life, Grieve said. The zoning regulations can be in effect for one year and a one-year extension is allowed.

The idea behind interim zone rules is to spend time working on a permanent zoning plan. Commissioners agreed that option was the best choice and also indicated their intent to have county planning office employees update the 1996 master plan as part of the permanent zoning plan.

The task is time- and resource-intensive, Grieve said, but can be done. It doesn't generate revenue for the county, either.

"Any process we do is collaborative between multiple jurisdictions and the door stays open to the city of Whitefish, but it's all done under the assumption we will have jurisdiction," Grieve said.

Grieve said under the interim plan the county would change city zone classifications to the closest county classification. County personnel won't address specific landowner requests as part of the interim process, he said, mostly because there won't be time. Those details become part of the permanent zone process.

Once commissioners establish a date for the changes to become effective, the net result would be doughnut residents would stop going to the city of Whitefish for any permits or zoning issues and instead go to the county planning office.

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or sridenour@dailyinterlake.com.