Here is a history of developments regarding the planning jurisdication outside Whitefish city limits.

Early 1960s through 2001 — Whitefish made planning and zoning decisions for 1-mile “doughnut” around the city.

November 2001 — Tri-City Planning Office unveils proposal to expand Whitefish zoning jurisdiction from 1 mile to 2 miles beyond city limits. Because Whitefish had become Class 2 city, it was allowed to extend full planning control to 2 miles, though Planning Board jurisdiction would be reduced from 4.5 miles to 2 miles.

October 2002 — Flathead County commissioners challenge proposal to expand Whitefish control in planning doughnut, arguing the county should have a say in the doughnut; Commissioner Dale Williams says county intends to push city authority back to 1-mile boundary.

December 2003 — County and city of Whitefish officials discuss drafting an interlocal agreement for doughnut.

April 2004 — Commissioner Gary Hall proposes reducing city’s planning area from 4.5 miles to 2 miles.

September 2004 — Commissioners reject interlocal agreement; Hall votes to have county revisit issue once new commissioner Joe Brenneman is on board in January 2005.

January 2005 — Proposed interlocal agreement back on drawing board; commissioners approve agreement shrinking Whitefish jurisdiction from 4.5 miles to 2 miles, but deal gave Whitefish full control of planning decisions in 2-mile doughnut.

March 2007 — City of Whitefish proposes zoning compliance permits for new construction or remodeling in doughnut, arguing city needs more control in area where building permits not allowed.

February 2008 — Commissioner Hall issues ultimatum to Whitefish City Council to exempt 2-mile planning doughnut from critical areas ordinance or face a lawsuit from the county.

February 2008 — People of the Doughnut group organizes; its lawyer, Tammi Fisher, contends 2007 county growth policy voids 2005 interlocal agreement for doughnut area. Whitefish City Attorney John Phelps argues interlocal agreement is valid.

March 2008 — County rescinds 2005 interlocal agreement; city of Whitefish sues county to keep agreement in place.

March 2008 — District Judge Kitty Curtis issues temporary restraining order preventing county from taking further action to eliminate agreement until court hearing is held.

March 2008 — Two doughnut residents and a holding company ask court to intervene in city’s lawsuit against the county.

May 2008 — Doughnut lawsuit heads to Montana Supreme Court after judge denies city’s request for injunction to block county from taking control of doughnut.

June 2008 — Flathead Business and Industry Association polls doughnut residents to determine how many want to be governed by city of Whitefish.

August 2008 — Montana Supreme Court denies Whitefish’s motion for injunction; county is free to take control of doughnut.

December 2008 — Montana Supreme Court sends Whitefish lawsuit back to Flathead District Court for further consideration.

February 2009 — Northwest Montana Association of Realtors asks District Court to file brief to provide supplementary information in doughnut lawsuit.

February 2009 — Commissioners cancel public hearing on doughnut zoning as District Court reconsiders lawsuit.

February 2009 — Commissioner Jim Dupont and Whitefish area resident Anne Dee Reno ask court to intervene because they favor county control of doughnut.

May 2009 — Judge Curtis puts 2005 interlocal agreement back in force, giving city control of doughnut until lawsuit is settled.

March 2010 — City and county begin talks about fate of doughnut jurisdiction; Whitefish agrees to ask court to delay a decision in lawsuit while negotiations continue.

August 2010 — Lawyers for city and county draft new interlocal agreement that includes three options for county participation in doughnut planning decisions.

September 2010 — Talks continue between city and county for a revised agreement.

October 2010 — Whitefish City Council stalls decision on proposed compromise after it’s discovered language in new deal would wipe out all regulations in doughnut.

November 2010 — Council in 3-2 vote approves revised interlocal agreement and agrees to drop city’s lawsuit.

December 2010 — County OKs revised agreement; commissioners declare it “a good start on the road to recovery.”

December 2010 — Intervenors want lawsuit to continue so court can rule on merits.

January 2011 — County Attorney’s Office rejects citizens initiative effort to create community council for doughnut, saying it’s illegal.

February 2011 — Two members of committee that drafted revised agreement ask court to grant joint city-county motion to dismiss lawsuit; also ask court to deny proposed intervenors the opportunity to be part of lawsuit.

April 2011 — Petition drive begins for referendum to give Whitefish city voters a chance to reject revised agreement.

May 2011 — Referendum supporters get enough signatures to put the issue on fall city election ballot.

June 2011 — County commissioners adopt resolution giving one-year termination notice to Whitefish for 2010 interlocal agreement; cite concerns over outcome of ballot referendum.

July 2011 — Judge Curtis dismisses Whitefish lawsuit against county; denies intervenors’ requests.

October 2011 — County commissioners agree to send out survey to doughnut residents, asking them whether they want to be governed by city or county.

Oct. 19, 2011 — Whitefish voters will get mail ballots to decide whether to repeal 2010 revised interlocal agreement.