Critics of City Hall project speak out

Condensation from a leaky ceiling air conditioner in the council chambers of City Hall steadily dripped into a waste basket last week as a contingent of residents voiced their opposition to plans for constructing a new City Hall.

The scene set the stage for a lively conversation over the need for a new City Hall, how much it should cost, and where it should be located.

City Hall is set to be demolished in September with construction of a new $14.6 million building and parking structure to follow at the same location at the corner of Baker Avenue and Second Street.

A half dozen residents voiced their concerns about the project during the June 1 council meeting, saying the cost is too expensive and that the new building should be constructed elsewhere to allow for downtown development.

Levy Johnson said the city does not need a $14.6 million building.

“The money being spent on City Hall is just too extravagant,” he said. “Now people in town are seeing their taxes go up. It’s absurd to spend that money on City Hall.”

Council in September 2012 voted to keep City Hall at the present location. In May 2013, council approved constructing an attached parking structure.

Nan Askew told council it should reconsider those past decisions.

“Please use wisdom and do not continue this path because of past decisions that have been made,” she said. “You are pursuing a course of action that this town doesn’t want, can’t afford and in reality doesn’t need to.”

Askew believes City Hall should be located near the Emergency Services Center on Baker Avenue to keep all city government in one area.

Supporters of the project counter that the project has been fully vetted and is underway.

Ian Collins said the project needs to continue forward.

“City Hall has been a topic the past five years, if not longer,” he said. “I’m very disappointed at some individuals who have chosen to speak out at this 11th hour. Many have been involved in civic projects and know what these types of projects take. Jumping in at the end is irresponsible.”

John Kramer in a letter to the Whitefish Pilot last month said council made the right decision to construct the new City Hall on the same site. He notes that the city has been setting aside tax-increment funds for the project over several years.

“This project has been well thought out over almost a decade, with many, many hours of public input at numerous community open houses,” he said. “I have attended most of these and the overwhelming majority of citizens have felt that the current site was the very best place out of the many locations considered.”

Still, Beth Dunnigan questions the cost of the project and the size of the building.

“A building of this magnitude is way too expensive for Whitefish given our current financial situation,” she said. “It’s something that should be looked at to be downsized, and if you need that amount of space it should be somewhere else.”

Former councilor Turner Askew said two years from now City Council will think, “What have we done?”

“I’m concerned about the new City Hall,” he said. “I don’t think people have gone beyond the two years for what the maintenance is.”

Richard Atkinson said City Hall shouldn’t take up prime retail location downtown.

“I do not understand the logic of building City Hall here,” he said. “This block is by far the most valuable piece of land in the city district. It’s got to be used for something that raises money.”

Atkinson claimed that the block, if developed for private businesses, could generate $1 million per year in property taxes for the city.

“You’re going to want the money that’s not being generated here on this land,” he said.

He ended his comments with a question — “Can I call for a referendum on the placement of City Hall?”

Councilor Andy Feury questioned Atkinson’s $1 million figure.

“If we got $1 million in taxes for one block we would never have a budget issue,” he said.

This spring, council chose a square building design for the main entrance of the new City Hall. The brick building with curved archways is reminiscent of the historic City Hall building.

The parking structure makes up about half the total cost of the project. Including retail space at the corner of East First Street and Baker Avenue as part of the parking structure would tack on $687,000.

Adding a full basement for City Hall comes at a cost of about $300,000.

The building will be engineered so that a third story can be added at a later date. The cost of the build-out of the third floor was estimated to cost $950,000.

The current City Hall was built in 1917. The city has expanded into the former Whitefish Credit Union and another building adjacent to City Hall.

The city Parks and Recreation and Planing and Zoning departments are located in a separate building at Depot Park. The police and fire departments, along with the Municipal Court, five years ago moved into the Emergency Services Center on Baker Avenue.

A new City Hall has been part of Whitefish’s long-range plans since 1987 and the need for a new facility was included in the 2005 downtown master plan.

Talk of constructing a new City Hall began in 2007 when BNSF Railway property north of the library was considered as a potential new site.

In 2011 at a town meeting, more than two-thirds of those in attendance favored keeping City Hall in its current location.