Unfounded dissent for City Hall project
Whitefish is a great city and community, fortunate with its locale, scenery, and citizens who contribute to our overall wellbeing.
In the course of my travels, I find myself expounding on the participation of the community in creating and building many of our public facilities. The list is long and impressive, and each new project has started with members of the community getting together and proposing the idea.
From there it expands to the involvement of interested parties in the development. As the project progresses, the public is invited to offer opinions and input that will further mature the overall plan. When the consensus of public has been vetted and the plans are ready, bids are requested and contractors selected. The project, when funded, is underway and construction begins.
I have been involved with several of these projects, the most recent of which is the new City Hall. I applied for a position on the City Hall Steering Committee and was selected at its inception in 2012. We met approximately monthly in open sessions with the public invited.
During those meetings we requested and were presented with information regarding the proposal to build a new City Hall. A parking solution for downtown was also part of this plan. Several locations were reviewed and the financial considerations for each were weighed.
As part of the decision process, the options were presented to the general public in several open town meetings. The majority of those voicing an opinion chose the current City Hall location.
Once the location was known, applications went out for an architectural firm to submit designs for both the City Hall and parking. Several companies provided design plans and after public review, a selection was made. Continuing throughout the three years of this process, the meetings, plans, and decisions were all open to the public. Anyone that had an inclination to voice an opinion was welcome and invited to speak.
The decision to build a new City Hall was initiated years before this committee was formed and estimates of the expense varied over the course of time. This building would have cost less had we been constructing in 2009, but that is not the case. At such time the necessary square footage of space for all City services might have been less. Everything concerning the building and its costs could be less, but this is now and construction costs are not going down.
To exacerbate the estimated total, the parking structure costs have been included, making it seem like the construction is more than double the actual cost of only the City Hall building. This perception has generated unfounded dissent by a small, but well funded, group of citizens.
After all the meetings and time invested by the Steering Committee and City Council, it is disappointing to hear their challenge to this project and its due process. This group, now petitioning for a halt to the progress, should have been a part of the process as it was developing, not an impediment after the fact.
— Toby Scott, Whitefish