City Hall site selection narrowed

The search for a new Whitefish City Hall site could be down to two choices.

The ad hoc committee, which is charged with recommending a future site for city offices, voted last week to narrow its focus to the current City Hall location and a lot on Baker Avenue across from the post office.

The City Council in February created the steering committee asking it to recommend at least one site to the council. A number of sites have been considered for the new building, including a site north of the library, Block 46 on Third and Spokane, the Mountain West Bank building and more recently the committee looked into transforming the parking lot at Spokane and Second Street.

The committee considered the pros and cons of each site before removing them from the list.

Discussion of selecting a new City Hall site last week revolved around the potential site’s impact to parking. If the new building is constructed to include a parking garage it could add parking. If parking isn’t added as a result of a new building, then those conducting business at City Hall could impact tourist use of already limited spaces.

“I can’t separate City Hall and getting parking downtown,” Phil Mitchell said. “We need parking in downtown more than City Hall needs to be in downtown. I travel a lot and I never look for a city hall.”

City Manager Chuck Stearns noted that those with business in City Hall could have a positive impact.

“City Hall is a traffic generator and it brings people to businesses that are nearby,” he said. “We don’t want to hide City Hall.”

Mitchell argued that by locating City Hall in downtown parking spaces could be filled when visitors need them. He suggested that selecting the Baker Avenue site, which is home to a professional office building, could result in parking if the current City Hall site is turned into a parking lot.

“Visible doesn’t have to be downtown,” he said. “The professional building solves a parking problem.”

One argument against the Baker Avenue site is that it’s disconnected from Central Avenue.

Mike Jenson argued that, in the future, the area would become even more important as Central Avenue businesses continue to fill out the street to the south.

He also noted that the site would be a good selection for a ramped parking garage and that the decision should be made looking at what Whitefish will look like 50 years from now.

“That property will be one of those that if we don’t buy it we will say we should have,” he said.

The city-sponsored a meeting last October to get public input on the site options. Most people at the meeting selected the current location on the corner of Baker Avenue and Second Street as their top choice.

The current site’s pros include that the land is already owned by the city, it’s centrally located and accessible for walking, and that it can accommodate a parking garage, among others. Cons of the site include increased traffic congestion.

If City Hall were to be built on the current site, it would likely go on the north half of the block. The city owns the Coldwell Banker building located at that spot. Construction would likely be done in a phased scenario, allowing city offices to stay on site during work.

The Baker Avenue site’s pros include that it has good accessibility and that it could provide extra parking for the park adjacent to the site. Cons include demolition costs of the current buildings and that it could add congestion to an already busy area near the post office.

A 2007 assessment showed the new city hall should be about 18,000 square feet in size to accommodate all of the departments, including administration and legal, public works, planning and building, and parks and recreation.

Money from the tax increment fund, a loan or a bond paid by tax increment funds will likely be used to finance construction. The city currently has $1.5 million set aside to fund a City Hall project and they continue to set aside $250,000 a year. In addition, they have $104,000 in collected impact fees to use.

At its next meeting, the committee is expected to discuss whether further testing of the sites is needed or whether it can narrow its recommendation down to one site. The committee is scheduled to meet again on July 18 at 8:30 a.m. at City Hall.